People of the Philippines vs. Luis Tampis and Daisy Napiliw Tampis

A warrantless arrest and the ensuing warrantless search of a moving vehicle are valid where probable cause is supplied by a tipped information and police surveillance, and the absence of an allegation of conspiracy in the information does not bar conviction where each accused’s individual acts independently constitute the offense charged.

Luis Tampis and Daisy Napiliw Tampis are common-law husband and wife who engaged in rice-selling. The Dangerous Drugs Act, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, penalizes the transportation of prohibited drugs and, under Section 20, imposes a heavier penalty when the marijuana involved weighs 750 grams or more. These statutory provisions supply the legal backdrop to the charge against them.

On August 5, 1997, PO1 Fidel Fagcayang of the Intelligence Task Force, Mountain Province Police, received a report from an asset that marijuana was about to be sold at Sitio Bugnay, Tinglayan, Kalinga. At 4:00 in the afternoon, he proceeded to the place to meet his asset, who pointed to the house where the transaction was to take place. PO1 Fagcayang conducted surveillance of the house and, as the day ended with negative results, decided to spend the night in his asset’s house just across the road. The next day, he resumed the stake-out. In the afternoon, he saw a pregnant woman and a thin man, who later turned out to be appellants Daisy Tampis and Luis Tampis, enter the house. PO1 Fagcayang walked towards the house, peeked through the door, and saw the two appellants and an old woman packing suspected marijuana leaves into a brown bag with the markings “Tak Tak Tak Ajinomoto” inscribed on its side. He monitored them until the following morning, August 7, 1997, when they came out of the house.

He saw appellant Luis Tampis carrying the brown bag marked with the markings “Tak Tak Tak Ajinomoto.” At 7:00 in the morning, appellants boarded a Ford Fiera bound for Bontoc. PO1 Fagcayang waited for the next ride, which came ten to fifteen minutes later. Worried that he might not catch up with appellants, he alighted at Tocucan and called up his superior, PO1 Alfred Awichen, at the Provincial Headquarters. He informed the latter that a pregnant woman and a thin man were transporting marijuana leaves from Bontoc. Acting on the report, PO1 Awichen organized a team to check on the buses leaving Bontoc. At the rotunda, one of his men, Bonifacio Banged, spotted a pregnant woman and her companion on board a Red Eagle Bus. While PO1 Fagcayang reported the events to PO1 Awichen, the bus departed. PO1 Awichen immediately radioed the Sabangan Police Station to monitor the Red Eagle Bus with body number 2008. PO3 Joselito Passol of the Investigation Section of Sabangan Police Station received the radio message. Immediately, he and two other policemen proceeded to the national road and waited for the arrival of the described bus. Twenty minutes later, the bus arrived. The policemen flagged it down and informed the driver and the conductor that certain passengers were allegedly carrying marijuana. They searched the bus and found a brown bag marked with “Tak Tak Tak Ajinomoto” under the seat on the left-hand side of the driver, right in front of appellant Daisy Tampis. They asked the passengers who owned the bag and, when nobody answered, they opened it and found seven bricks of suspected marijuana leaves packed with masking tape and assorted clothing. They seized the said articles and invited appellants to the municipal hall for questioning. Moments later, members of the Narcotics Command arrived and took custody of appellants and the confiscated articles. The seven bricks of suspected marijuana leaves were submitted to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory at Camp Dangwa for examination. Forensic Chemist Joyda Fagto Ayak confirmed that the said items were indeed marijuana, a prohibited drug, packed in brick form wrapped in newspaper and brown packing tape, and weighed 7,015.50 grams.

Appellants denied ownership of the brown bag and its alleged contents. They narrated a different version of the incident. Sometime in May 1996, appellants, who are common-law husband and wife, went home to Hapao, Hungduan, Ifugao Province and worked in the farm of Daisy’s father. They eventually engaged in the business of rice-selling. On the last week of July 1997, appellants had a fight with Marissa Sumedca, a rice dealer from Tabuk, Kalinga, after the latter did not deliver the correct number of cavans and did not issue a receipt for the transaction. On August 5, 1997, the eight-month pregnant Daisy went to Tabuk, Kalinga but failed to find Marissa, so she proceeded to see her cousin, Jose Banngawan, in Bontoc, Mountain Province to borrow money for medical check-up and her forthcoming delivery. On August 6, 1997 at 8:30 in the morning, she left Tabuk on board a Ford Fiera bound for Bontoc, Mountain Province. At 2:00 in the afternoon, the vehicle broke down at Tinglayan, Kalinga. Subsequently, at 5:00 in the afternoon, she saw an Elf truck coming from Tabuk with her husband on board.

Meanwhile, Luis Tampis testified that on August 6, 1997, he followed his wife to Tabuk but was informed that she proceeded to Bontoc, Mountain Province. He boarded an Elf truck going to Besao, Mountain Province. When he reached Tinglayan, he saw his wife Daisy. He alighted from the Elf truck and asked her to ride with them. However, the truck was already overloaded, so they decided to remain in Tinglayan. The following morning, appellants left Tinglayan and arrived at Bontoc at 9:00 in the morning. They boarded the Red Eagle Bus bound for Baguio. At Sabangan, the bus stopped at a checkpoint. The police officers searched the bus and found a brown bag with marijuana leaves inside.

The defense also presented Aaron Fakat, the driver of the Ford Fiera, who testified that he picked up a pregnant woman and a man, who was carrying a blue travelling bag and black backpack, at Tinglayan. At Bontoc, Mountain Province, the two alighted and boarded the Red Eagle Bus. Likewise, the conductor of the Red Eagle Bus, Jefferson Tafaleng, testified that he helped Daisy carry a blue travelling bag on board the bus. The trial court convicted both accused as principals.

• Legality of Arrest: Appellants contended that the warrantless arrest and search made by the police officers was unlawful for lack of probable cause; the arrest was effected based on a radio message that “a pregnant woman accompanied by a man” was transporting marijuana, without any other description or identifying features of the appellants.
• Admissibility of Object Evidence: Appellants argued that the prohibited articles were the fruits of an illegal search and seizure and are, therefore, inadmissible in evidence.
• Defective Information: Appellants argued that the information failed to allege conspiracy and thus violated their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.

• Legality of Warrantless Arrest: Whether the warrantless arrest of appellants was lawful despite the absence of a warrant and the reliance on a radio message.
• Admissibility of Object Evidence: Whether the marijuana seized during the warrantless search of the Red Eagle Bus was admissible despite appellants’ claim that it was the fruit of an illegal search and seizure.
• Defective Information/Conspiracy: Whether appellants’ conviction could stand where the information did not allege conspiracy, allegedly violating their right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00 was correctly imposed for transporting 7,015.50 grams of marijuana.

• Legality of Warrantless Arrest: Yes. The arrest was lawful under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure; probable cause existed from the asset’s tip, PO1 Fagcayang’s surveillance, and the radio description of a pregnant woman and a thin man transporting marijuana. Appellants also failed to quash the information before arraignment and are estopped from questioning the arrest.
• Admissibility of Object Evidence: Yes. The search was valid as incident to a lawful arrest and as a warrantless search of a moving vehicle; the seized marijuana was admissible.
• Defective Information/Conspiracy: No. Although conspiracy must be alleged, its absence did not bar conviction because appellants’ individual acts independently constituted delivery and transportation of prohibited drugs.
• Penalty: Yes. Under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and Section 20 thereof, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00; since the marijuana weighed 7,015.50 grams, reclusion perpetua and a P500,000.00 fine were correctly imposed.

• Legality of Warrantless Arrest: Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure permits 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. PO1 Fagcayang received information from his asset that a sale of marijuana was about to take place; he conducted surveillance and saw both appellants packing suspected marijuana leaves into a brown bag marked “Tak Tak Tak Ajinomoto”; appellants had physical possession of the bag from the time they left the house until they boarded a Ford Fiera; both appellants rode the Red Eagle Bus with body number 2008 bound for Baguio; and when the policemen searched the bus at Sabangan, they found a pregnant woman with the same brown bag located in front of her under the driver’s seat, which upon inspection contained suspected marijuana leaves that yielded positive for marijuana. The information given to the policemen at the Sabangan Police Station provided them sufficient ground to believe that a crime had been committed or was being committed and justified the arrest without a warrant. Even if the message regarding identities was relayed through radio, there was a clear description of appellants to enable the policemen to identify them. The policemen had reasonable grounds to believe that appellants were dealing or transporting prohibited drugs, and tipped information is sufficient to provide probable cause to effect a warrantless search and seizure. 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, or the existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the items sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched. More importantly, a warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect; any objection, defect, or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea on arraignment. Having failed to move for the quashing of the information before arraignment, appellants are estopped from questioning the legality of their arrest, and any irregularity was cured upon their voluntary submission to the trial court’s jurisdiction.
• Admissibility of Object Evidence: Inasmuch as the arrest was lawful, appellants may be searched for anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. Furthermore, the search of a moving vehicle is one of the doctrinally accepted exceptions to the constitutional mandate that no search or seizure shall be made except by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge after personally determining the existence of probable cause. The warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle carrying the prohibited drugs can be quickly moved out of the area or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. The Court discerned no improper motive, and no such motive was ever imputed to the police, as to why they would fabricate evidence and falsely implicate appellants in such a serious offense. The absence of evidence as to improper motive actuating the principal witnesses for the prosecution strongly sustains the conclusion that none existed, and consequently their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. Moreover, prosecution witnesses who are all law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duties in the absence of proof to the contrary. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimony is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under examination; its findings on such matters are binding and conclusive on appellate courts unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted.
• Defective Information/Conspiracy: The rule is that conspiracy must be alleged, not merely inferred, in the information. Absence of a particular statement in the accusatory portion of the charge sheet concerning any definitive act constituting conspiracy renders the indictment insufficient to hold one accused liable for the individual acts of his co-accused; thus, each of them would be held accountable only for their respective participation in the commission of the offense. In this case, while conspiracy was not alleged in the information, the individual acts of the appellants constituted the offense of delivery and transportation of prohibited drugs. Both of them packed the marijuana leaves into a brown bag. They also left the house together carrying the said brown bag. Finally, they both boarded a Ford Fiera and a Red Eagle Bus with the same brown bag, which was later found to contain marijuana. Hence, even in the absence of an allegation of conspiracy in the information, appellants are still culpable for the crime charged inasmuch as their individual participation satisfied the elements thereof.
• Penalty: Article II, Section 4 of The Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit, or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as broker in any such transaction. Under Section 20 of the said Act, the above-prescribed penalty shall be imposed if the marijuana involved weighs 750 grams or more. Since the quantity of marijuana involved in this case weighed 7,015.50 grams, the trial court correctly sentenced appellants to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

• Warrantless Arrest Based on Tipped Information — Probable cause for a warrantless arrest may be established by tipped information relayed to police, especially when corroborated by surveillance and a sufficient description of the suspects. The Court found that the radio message describing a pregnant woman and a thin man transporting marijuana, combined with PO1 Fagcayang’s surveillance, gave the police reasonable grounds to believe appellants were transporting prohibited drugs.
• 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, or the existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the items sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched. The Court applied this definition to uphold the warrantless arrest and search.
• Warrantless Search of a Moving Vehicle — This is a doctrinally accepted exception to the constitutional mandate that no search or seizure shall be made except by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge after personally determining probable cause. It is justified because it is not practicable to secure a warrant when the vehicle carrying prohibited drugs can be quickly moved out of the area or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. The Court applied this exception to the search of the Red Eagle Bus.
• Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest — A lawful arrest allows a search of the person arrested for anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. Because the arrest was lawful, the search of appellants and the seizure of the marijuana were valid.
• Non-Jurisdictional Nature of Warrantless Arrest; Estoppel — A warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect. Any objection, defect, or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea on arraignment. Failure to move for the quashing of the information before arraignment estops the accused from questioning the legality of the arrest, and any irregularity is cured by voluntary submission to the trial court’s jurisdiction.
• Conspiracy Must Be Alleged in the Information — Conspiracy must be alleged, not merely inferred, in the information. Absence of a particular statement in the accusatory portion concerning any definitive act constituting conspiracy renders the indictment insufficient to hold one accused liable for the individual acts of his co-accused; each is accountable only for his respective participation. In this case, although conspiracy was not alleged, appellants’ individual acts independently constituted delivery and transportation of prohibited drugs.
• Penalty for Transportation of Marijuana (750 Grams or More) — Under Article II, Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and Section 20 thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 is imposed for transporting prohibited drugs, and the prescribed penalty applies when the marijuana involved weighs 750 grams or more. Because the marijuana weighed 7,015.50 grams, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a P500,000.00 fine was correctly imposed.
• Presumption of Regular Performance of Official Duty; Credibility of Witnesses — Law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duties in the absence of proof to the contrary. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is binding on appellate courts unless facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted.
• Absence of Improper Motive — The absence of evidence as to improper motive actuating the principal witnesses for the prosecution strongly sustains the conclusion that none existed, and their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.

• “The information given to the policemen at the Sabang Police Station, who eventually apprehended the appellants, provided them sufficient ground to believe that a crime has been committed or is being committed and justified the arrest of the appellants without a warrant.” — This passage states the Court’s ratio for upholding the warrantless arrest based on the information relayed to the apprehending officers.
• “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; or the existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the items, articles or objects sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched.” — This is the Court’s canonical formulation of probable cause for warrantless arrest and search.
• “The warrantless search of a moving vehicle is one of the doctrinally accepted exceptions to the constitutional mandate that no search or seizure shall be made except by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge after personally determining the existence of a probable cause. The warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle carrying the prohibited drugs can be quickly moved out of the area or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.” — This passage defines and applies the moving-vehicle exception to the warrant requirement.
• “The rule is that conspiracy must be alleged, not merely inferred, in the information. Absence of a particular statement in the accusatory portion of the charge sheet concerning any definitive act constituting conspiracy renders the indictment insufficient to hold one accused liable for the individual acts of his co-accused. Thus, each of them would be held accountable only for their respective participation in the commission of the offense.” — This passage states the controlling rule on pleading conspiracy and the effect of its omission, which the Court applied to uphold conviction based on individual acts.

• People vs. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868 [1998] — Cited for the rule that tipped information is sufficient to provide probable cause to effect a warrantless search and seizure.
• People vs. Valdez, 363 Phil. 481 [1999] — Cited for the definition of probable cause and for the penalty imposed for transportation of prohibited drugs.
• People vs. del Rosario, 365 Phil. 292 [1999] — Cited for the rule that a warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect.
• People vs. Mundo, G.R. No. 138929, 2 October 2001, 366 SCRA 471 — Cited for the rule that objection to an arrest must be made before arraignment and that failure to quash estops the accused.
• People vs. de Guzman, G.R. Nos. 117952-53, 14 February 2001, 351 SCRA 573 — Cited for the rule that any irregularity in arrest is cured by voluntary submission to the trial court’s jurisdiction.
• Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124036, 23 October 2001 — Cited for the rule that conspiracy must be alleged, not merely inferred, in the information.
• People vs. Barita, G.R. No. 123541, 8 February 2000, 325 SCRA 22 — Cited for the rule that absence of evidence of improper motive sustains the prosecution witnesses’ credibility.
• People vs. Libnao, et al., G.R. No. 136860, 20 January 2003 — Cited for the presumption that law enforcers regularly performed their duties.
• People vs. Esperida, G.R. Nos. 139637-38, 22 January 2003 — Cited for the rule that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is binding on appellate courts absent overlooked facts.

• Article II, Section 4, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Penalizes the sale, administration, delivery, distribution, transportation of prohibited drugs, or acting as broker in any such transaction, and imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. Applied because appellants transported marijuana.
• Section 20, Republic Act No. 6425 — Prescribes the penalty when the marijuana involved weighs 750 grams or more. Applied because the marijuana involved weighed 7,015.50 grams.
• Rule 113, Section 5(a), Rules on Criminal Procedure — Allows a peace officer or private person 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. Applied to justify the warrantless arrest.
• Rule 126, Section 13, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Allows a search incident to a lawful arrest for anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. Applied because the arrest was lawful.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.