People of the Philippines vs. Lita Ayangao

A warrantless arrest is lawful under Rule 113, Section 5(a) when the arresting officers have probable cause, based on a tipped information and their own observation, that the person is actually committing a crime; the search incident to that lawful arrest is valid, and any objection to the arrest or warrantless search is waived by entering a plea and actively participating in trial.

Lita Ayangao y Batong-og was charged by the People of the Philippines with transporting 14.75 kilograms of marijuana without authority in Mabalacat, Pampanga. The charge was brought under Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, the Dangerous Drugs Act. That statute penalized the transport of prohibited drugs and, for marijuana weighing 750 grams or more, prescribed reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000 to ₱10,000,000.

On August 13, 1999, Lita Ayangao y Batong-og, a resident of Lacnog, Agbanawag Tabuk, Kalinga Province, was charged with transporting 14.75 kilograms of marijuana in Mabalacat, Pampanga. The information alleged that she wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously dispatched in transit or transported 15 bricks of dried marijuana leaves, with an actual total weight of 14.75 kilograms, without authority of law.

Two weeks before that date, PO3 Bienvenido Sagum and PO3 Nestor Galvez of the Criminal Detection and Intelligence Group based at Diamond Subdivision, Balibago, Angeles City, received information from an informant that a woman from Mountain Province delivered dried marijuana leaves for sale at Sapang Biabas, Mabalacat, Pampanga to drug pushers. The informant relayed the information to C/Insp. Rhodel O. Sermonia, who instructed the two operatives to conduct surveillance. The target was described as about 50 years old, 5 feet in height, with straight long hair, and coming from Kalinga province.

At around 5:00 a.m. on August 13, 1999, the informant went to the officers’ headquarters and told them the suspect was due to arrive at Sapang Biabas. PO3 Sagum and PO3 Galvez, together with the informant, went to Sapang Biabas and parked their car near the entrance of the road. While in the car, the informant pointed to a woman matching the description. The woman alighted from a tricycle and loaded two sacks with camote fruits on top. The officers approached and noticed marijuana dried leaves protruding through a hole in one sack. They introduced themselves as police officers and asked the woman to empty the sacks. The sacks yielded sweet potatoes mixed with 15 brick-like substances wrapped in brown paper and masking tape; one damaged brick, in plain view, revealed dried marijuana leaves. The woman was arrested and identified herself as Lita Ayangao y Batong-Og. She and the suspected marijuana were brought to the police headquarters at Diamond Subdivision, Angeles City. The evidence was sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory at Camp Olivas, where Chief Forensic Chemist Daisy P. Babor examined it. The Initial Laboratory Report indicated that the specimens from the 15 bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves weighing 14.75 kilograms were positive for marijuana.

The defense presented a different account. Ayangao denied the charge and claimed she had nothing to do with the marijuana. She testified that she went to Sapang Biabas “Marimar,” Camachile, Mabalacat, Pampanga, from Tabuk, Kalinga Province, on August 13, 1999, only upon the request of a certain Magda Dumpao. Magda had bought a house in Mawaque, Mabalacat, and learned it was being sold again; she asked Ayangao to talk to Jaime Alarcon, who acted as Magda’s agent in buying the house. Magda instructed Ayangao how to reach Alarcon’s house. Ayangao arrived at Alarcon’s house at around 3:00 a.m. and was welcomed inside by Gloria and Jocelyn Alarcon, Jaime’s wife and daughter-in-law. Because Jaime was not around, she asked permission to nap; Gloria and Jocelyn allowed her to sleep on the sofa. At around 6:00 a.m., somebody knocked. Gloria opened the door, and two men identifying themselves as CIS agents said they were looking for somebody from Baguio City. One of them went to where Ayangao was lying and asked Gloria who she was; Gloria answered that she came from Tabuk. The police officers asked Ayangao to go with them. When she refused, the policemen forced her out of the house and boarded her in their car. Inside the car, she saw a sack and a carton box. She was brought to the police headquarters at Diamond Subdivision, Angeles City, made to sit in a chair, and, in her view, the sack was opened and its contents placed on a table. She then heard the policemen say the contents were marijuana and accuse her of owning it.

Reynaldo Nunag, purok chairman of Sitio Makabakle, Marimar, Biabas, Mabalacat, Pampanga, testified that, as a tricycle driver whose terminal was near Jaime Alarcon’s house, he did not see any unusual incident in the vicinity in the morning of August 13, 1999. He also did not see how Ayangao was arrested and did not see the policemen’s car.

The trial court found the prosecution’s version credible. It reasoned that Ayangao’s defense of frame-up was not supported by evidence and could not prevail over the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and that the law enforcers’ testimonies carried the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The court convicted her of violating Section 4, Article II of RA 6425 as amended by RA 7659 by transporting 14.75 kilograms of marijuana without authority, and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua and a fine of ₱500,000.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Appellant argued that the lower court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite serious inconsistencies and incredibility, creating doubt regarding their truthfulness and credibility.
• Alibi: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in not considering favorably her defense of alibi as a ground for acquittal despite the alleged weakness of the prosecution evidence, which she claimed was insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence.
• Reasonable Doubt: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in not acquitting her on the ground of reasonable doubt.
• Miranda Rights and Warrantless Search: Appellant argued that the apprehending officers violated her Miranda rights and that the 15 bricks of marijuana were inadmissible because the warrantless search was invalid, not having been made pursuant to a lawful arrest.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite alleged serious inconsistencies and incredibility.
• Alibi: Whether the trial court erred in not considering favorably the defense of alibi as a ground for acquittal despite the alleged weakness of the prosecution evidence.
• Reasonable Doubt: Whether the trial court erred in not acquitting the appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt.
• Miranda Rights and Waiver: Whether the apprehending officers violated the appellant’s Miranda rights and whether she waived objections to her arrest and warrantless search by entering a plea of not guilty and actively participating in trial.
• Legality of Warrantless Arrest and Search: Whether the warrantless arrest and the resulting search and seizure were lawful, and whether the marijuana bricks were admissible.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of ₱500,000 was correctly imposed for transporting 14.75 kilograms of marijuana under RA 7659.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: No. The alleged inconsistencies were minor and negligible and did not negate the truth of the testimonies; the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is respected absent proof of overlooked or misapplied facts of weight.
• Alibi: No. Alibi is inherently weak; appellant failed to prove presence at another place and physical impossibility to be at the scene, the claimed house being only 10 meters from the tricycle terminal.
• Reasonable Doubt: No. The prosecution discharged its burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court’s decision was supported by the evidence on record.
• Miranda Rights and Waiver: No. Any objection to the arrest or warrantless search was waived when appellant entered a plea of not guilty and actively participated in trial; objections must be made before plea.
• Legality of Warrantless Arrest and Search: Yes. The arrest fell under Rule 113, Section 5(a), the officers having probable cause from the tip and their observation of marijuana protruding from the sack; the search incident to the lawful arrest was valid.
• Penalty: Yes. RA 7659 prescribes reclusion perpetua to death and a fine of ₱500,000 to ₱10,000,000 for 750 grams or more; with no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the lesser indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law did not apply.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Credibility is a matter best assessed by the trial court judge because he has the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and deportment on the stand. The inconsistencies criticized by the appellant were minor and involved negligible details; they did not negate the truth of the witnesses’ testimonies nor detract from their credibility. The trial court resolved the conflict between PO3 Galvez’s testimony that the informant gave the exact date of arrival and PO3 Sagum’s testimony that the informant did not know the time by giving more weight to PO3 Sagum, as shown by its finding that the informant arrived at 5:00 a.m. on August 13, 1999 and said the appellant was arriving at 6:00 a.m. That judgment call on credibility should prevail absent proof that facts or circumstances of weight or substance bearing on the result were overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied.

• Alibi: Alibi is inherently weak. To serve as basis for acquittal, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence (a) presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime. Appellant failed to meet both requirements. Jaime Alarcon’s house, where she claimed to be sleeping at the time of her arrest, was only 10 meters from the tricycle terminal where she was arrested. Thus, alibi could not prevail over the prosecution’s evidence.

• Reasonable Doubt: After a thorough review of the records, the prosecution discharged its burden of proving appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court’s decision was supported by the evidence on record. The conviction was affirmed.

• Miranda Rights and Waiver: The contention that the arrest was illegal because appellant was not read her Miranda rights was without merit. It has been repeatedly ruled that, by entering a plea upon arraignment and by actively participating in trial, an accused is deemed to have waived any objection to his arrest and warrantless search. Any objection to the arrest or acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before entering a plea; otherwise, it is waived. Appellant submitted herself to the trial court’s jurisdiction when she pleaded not guilty and participated in trial, thereby waiving any irregularity in her arrest. Assuming no waiver, the waiver of non-admissibility of the “fruits” of an invalid warrantless arrest and search is not casually presumed under People vs. Barros and People vs. Aruta, but the arrest here was lawful.

• Legality of Warrantless Arrest and Search: The arrest was lawful because appellant was actually committing a crime when arrested — transporting marijuana, an act prohibited by law. A lawful arrest made the resulting warrantless search valid, as a legitimate warrantless arrest authorized the arresting officers to validly search and seize from the offender (1) any dangerous weapons and (2) things which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. The warrantless arrest fell under Rule 113, Section 5(a), Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows a peace officer to arrest without a warrant when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The officer must be spurred by probable cause, which signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man’s belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged. The arresting officers had probable cause from the tip and from seeing marijuana protruding through a hole in one sack. Tipped information is sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search. Although the officers received the tip two weeks before the arrest, they could not be faulted for not applying for a search warrant because the exact date of appellant’s arrival was not known; the informant arrived at 5:00 a.m. on August 13, 1999 and said appellant would arrive at 6:00 a.m., just an hour later. The circumstances called for immediate response. In cases where warrantless searches were invalidated, the officers had time to obtain warrants: in People vs. Aminudin, the tip was received two days before arrival; in People vs. Encinada, the tip was received at 4:00 p.m. on May 20, 1992 for a 7:00 a.m. arrival the next day; in People vs. Aruta, the information was received on December 13, 1988 for a 6:30 p.m. arrival on December 14, 1999, giving a day to obtain a warrant. Here, the officers could not have applied for a search warrant since a warrant’s validity was only 10 days and they did not know when appellant would arrive. People vs. Valdez upheld a warrantless arrest and search on a similar on-the-spot tip.

• Penalty: With RA 7659, Section 4 of RA 6425 provides the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000 to ₱10,000,000 if the marijuana involved weighs 750 grams or more. Since the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, the rules for applying penalties in Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code apply, pursuant to People vs. Simon, which recognized the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code rules on penalties and the Indeterminate Sentence Law to the Dangerous Drugs Act after its amendment by RA 7659. Because appellant was found transporting 14.75 kilograms of marijuana and there was no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the trial court correctly imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua and did not apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which is not applicable when indivisible penalties are imposed.

• Credibility of witnesses; deference to trial court — Credibility is best assessed by the trial judge because of his opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and deportment on the stand. Appellate courts will not overturn such findings absent proof that facts or circumstances of weight or substance bearing on the result were overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied. In this case, the alleged inconsistencies were minor and negligible, and the trial court’s preference for PO3 Sagum’s testimony over PO3 Galvez’s on the informant’s knowledge of the arrival time was a credibility judgment that stood.

• Waiver of objection to illegal arrest and warrantless search — By entering a plea upon arraignment and actively participating in trial, an accused is deemed to have waived any objection to his arrest and warrantless search. Any objection to the arrest or acquisition of jurisdiction over the person must be made before plea; otherwise it is waived. Appellant’s plea of not guilty and trial participation waived any irregularity in her arrest. The waiver of non-admissibility of fruits of an invalid warrantless arrest and search is not casually presumed under People vs. Barros and People vs. Aruta, but the arrest here was lawful.

• Warrantless arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(a) — A peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The officer must be spurred by probable cause. Probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man’s belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged. The arresting officers had probable cause from the tipped information and from seeing marijuana protruding through a hole in one sack; appellant was actually transporting marijuana when arrested.

• Warrantless search incident to lawful arrest — A lawful warrantless arrest authorizes the arresting officers to validly search and seize from the offender (1) any dangerous weapons and (2) things which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. Because the arrest was lawful under Rule 113, Section 5(a), the resulting warrantless search was valid and the marijuana bricks were admissible.

• Tipped information as probable cause — Tipped information is sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search. The Court distinguished cases where officers had time to obtain a warrant: in People vs. Aminudin, the tip came two days before arrival; in People vs. Encinada, at 4:00 p.m. on May 20, 1992 for a 7:00 a.m. arrival the next day; and in People vs. Aruta, on December 13, 1988 for a 6:30 p.m. arrival on December 14, 1999. Here, the informant arrived at 5:00 a.m. on August 13, 1999 and said appellant would arrive at 6:00 a.m., just an hour later, so immediate response was justified. People vs. Valdez upheld a warrantless arrest and search on a similar on-the-spot tip.

• Alibi — Alibi is inherently weak. For it to serve as basis for acquittal, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence (a) presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime. Appellant failed both requirements; the house where she claimed to be sleeping was only 10 meters from the tricycle terminal where she was arrested.

• Penalty for transporting marijuana under RA 7659 — Section 4 of RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, provides the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000 to ₱10,000,000 if the marijuana involved weighs 750 grams or more. Since the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code applies. People vs. Simon recognized the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code rules on penalties and the Indeterminate Sentence Law to the Dangerous Drugs Act after its amendment by RA 7659. With 14.75 kilograms of marijuana and no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed; the Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable when indivisible penalties are imposed.

• "by entering a plea upon arraignment and by actively participating in the trial, an accused is deemed to have waived any objection to his arrest and warrantless search." — States the waiver rule applied to the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and participated in trial.
• "The Court finds that the arrest was lawful as appellant was actually committing a crime when she was arrested — transporting marijuana, are act prohibited by law." — States the ratio for the legality of the warrantless arrest.
• "Although the term eludes exact definition, probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man’s belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged." — Defines probable cause, the standard that justified the warrantless arrest and search.
• "Alibi as a defense is inherently weak and for it to serve as basis for an acquittal, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence (a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) the physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime." — States the requisites for alibi, which the appellant failed to satisfy.

• People vs. Sullano, 331 SCRA 649 [2000] — Cited for the rule that witness credibility is best assessed by the trial court judge who observed the witnesses’ demeanor and deportment on the stand.
• People vs. Encinada, 280 SCRA 72 [1997] — Cited both on credibility deference and as a case where the police were tipped off at 4:00 p.m. on May 20, 1992 that the accused would arrive at 7:00 a.m. the next day, giving them time to obtain a warrant.
• Madrid vs. Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA 570 [2000] — Cited for the rule that minor inconsistencies do not impair the truth of witnesses’ testimonies or detract from their credibility.
• People vs. Mandraga, 344 SCRA 628 [2000]; People vs. Tidula, 292 SCRA 596 [1998]; and People vs. Lagarto, 326 SCRA 693 [2000] — Cited for the rule that an accused waives objections to arrest and warrantless search by entering a plea and participating in trial, and that objections must be made before plea.
• People vs. Barros, 231 SCRA 557 [1994] — Cited for the rule that the waiver of non-admissibility of the “fruits” of an invalid warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure is not to be casually presumed.
• People vs. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 [1998] — Reiterated People vs. Barros on the non-casual presumption of waiver; also cited as an example where a warrantless search was invalidated because the officers had time to obtain a warrant.
• People vs. Valdez, 304 SCRA 140 [1999] — Cited for the definition of probable cause and for upholding the validity of a warrantless arrest and corresponding search made on the strength of a similar on-the-spot tip.
• People vs. Montilla, 285 SCRA 703 [1998] — Cited for the rule that tipped information is sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search.
• People vs. Aminudin, 163 SCRA 402 [1988] — Cited as a case where a warrantless search was invalidated because the officers received the tip two days before the accused’s actual date of arrival and thus had time to obtain a search warrant.
• People vs. Suelto, 325 SCRA 41 [2000] — Cited for the two requirements of alibi: presence at another place at the time of the offense and physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime.
• People vs. Simon, 234 SCRA 555 [1994] — Cited for recognizing the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code rules on penalties and the Indeterminate Sentence Law to the Dangerous Drugs Act after its amendment by RA 7659.

• Section 4, Article II, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659 (Dangerous Drugs Act) — Prohibits transporting marijuana without authority. It provides the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000 to ₱10,000,000 if the marijuana involved weighs 750 grams or more. Applied: appellant was convicted of transporting 14.75 kilograms of marijuana without authority.
• Rule 113, Section 5(a), Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — A peace officer may arrest a person even without a warrant when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Applied: the warrantless arrest was lawful because appellant was actually transporting marijuana in the officers’ presence.
• Section 13, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure [2000] — A lawful warrantless arrest authorizes the arresting officers to validly search and seize from the offender (1) any dangerous weapons and (2) things which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. Applied: the warrantless search that yielded the marijuana bricks was valid.
• Section 10, Rule 126, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — A search warrant is valid only for 10 days. Applied: the officers could not have applied for a search warrant because they did not know when appellant would arrive, and any warrant would have been valid for only 10 days.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Provides the rules for applying penalties composed of two indivisible penalties. Applied: because the penalty under RA 7659 was composed of reclusion perpetua to death and there was no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Not applicable when indivisible penalties are imposed. Applied: the trial court correctly did not apply it in imposing reclusion perpetua.

Justice Vitug, Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Justice Morales concurred.