People vs. Maspil, Jr.

A warrantless search conducted at a police checkpoint is valid when the checkpoint is established within reasonable limits and the search is conducted based on reliable information that a crime is being committed. The search may also be justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest where the accused are caught in flagrante delicto, transporting prohibited drugs in plain view of the arresting officers.

The appellants were charged under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, which penalizes the illegal transportation of prohibited drugs. The First Narcotics Regional Unit of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) stationed in Baguio City had received information from confidential informers that the appellants would be transporting a large volume of marijuana to Baguio City. Acting on this tip, the operatives established a checkpoint along the Halsema Highway at Sayangan, Atok, Benguet, a location on the route from the Mountain Province to Baguio City.

On October 30, 1986, members of the First Narcotics Regional Unit of the Narcotics Command stationed in Baguio City, including Sgt. Amador Ablang, Sgt. Florentino Baillo, and Lt. Jerry Valeroso, established a checkpoint in front of the Municipal Hall at Sayangan, Atok, Benguet, along the Halsema Highway. Their Commanding Officer, Maj. Basilio Cablayan, had been tipped off by confidential informers that the accused Maspil and Bagking would be transporting a large volume of marijuana to Baguio City, and the informers went along with the operatives to Sayangan.

At about 2:00 o'clock in the early morning of November 1, 1986, the operatives intercepted a Sarao type jeep driven by Maspil with Bagking as his companion. Upon inspection, the jeep was found loaded with two plastic sacks, one jute sack, and three big round tin cans which, when opened, contained several bundles of suspected dried marijuana leaves. Maspil and Bagking were arrested and the suspected marijuana leaves were confiscated. The confiscated items were later referred to the PC Crime Laboratory, Regional Unit 1, for examination. Forensic Chemist Carlos V. Figuerroa determined that the specimen, with an aggregate weight of 115.66 kilos, tested positive for marijuana.

The accused admitted that the marijuana dried leaves were indeed confiscated from the jeep being driven by Maspil with Bagking as his helper. However, they claimed that the prohibited drugs belonged to two of their passengers who loaded them in the jeep as paying cargo for Baguio City without the accused knowing that they were marijuana. According to the appellants, on October 31, 1986, a certain Mrs. Luisa Mendoza hired Maspil's jeep to transport her stock of dried fish and canned goods to Abatan, Buguias, Benguet. After unloading the cargo, while Maspil and Bagking were eating at a restaurant, they were approached by two persons, one of whom was later identified as Danny Buteng. Buteng asked if they were going to Baguio City and said he had cargo consisting of flowers in closed tin cans and sealed sacks for the commemoration of All Souls Day. Buteng and his companion loaded the cargo themselves, and the appellants left Abatan at about 7:00 o'clock that evening with Buteng, his companion, and four other passengers.

Upon reaching Sayangan, Atok, Benguet, Maspil stopped at the Marosan Restaurant where they intended to take coffee. A soldier waved at Maspil to drive to where he was, and after securing permission to inspect the cargo, the soldier grabbed Maspil and asked who owned the cargo. The soldiers later placed Maspil and Bagking under arrest since the cargo turned out to be marijuana. Lawrence Balonglong, a radio reporter who was invited to witness the operation, affirmed the unsuccessful pursuit of the alleged two companions of Maspil and Bagking, recalling that the NARCOM operatives boarded the jeep to chase the two companions but failed to catch anyone.

The appellants also alleged that they were maltreated at the townhall to admit ownership of the confiscated marijuana, and that Mike Maspil, an elder brother of Moises Maspil, was mauled by Lt. Valeroso on the road and arrested without apparent reason, with his wallet containing P21,000 and a Seiko wrist watch taken from him. The trial court gave credence to the positive and categorical statement of Sgt. Baillo that there were only two occupants — the appellants — inside the jeepney at the time of arrest.

• Identity of the Confiscated Marijuana: The appellants contended that the alleged marijuana as charged in the information is different from that presented for laboratory examination, citing a discrepancy of 3.76 kilos between the weight stated in the information (111.9 kilos) and the forensic chemist's report (115.66 kilos), suggesting that the marijuana presented as evidence was not the one confiscated or had been tampered with.

• Number of Occupants in the Vehicle: The appellants claimed that the trial court erred in finding that there were only two occupants in the vehicle, arguing that Sgt. Baillo's testimony was full of inconsistencies as to the time of the arrest, the time the checkpoint was removed, and the persons with him at the time of arrest.

• Lack of Knowledge of the Cargo: The appellants maintained that they did not know what was in the cargo, their main concern being to return to Baguio City, and they saw no need to question their two passengers on why flowers were being kept in closed cans and sacks.

• Admissibility of the Confiscated Marijuana: The appellants argued that the marijuana allegedly seized from them was a product of an unlawful search without a warrant, citing the case of People vs. Aminnudin (163 SCRA 402 [1988]) where marijuana seized without a warrant was ruled inadmissible.

• Burden of Proof: The appellants claimed that the trial court erred in shifting the burden of proving the commission of the offense charged to the appellants, requiring them to prove their innocence.

• Burden of Proof Discharged: The Solicitor General argued that the appellants themselves admitted that the confiscated marijuana was taken from their jeep while they were transporting it from Abatan, Buguias, Benguet to Baguio City, and that the burden of the prosecution to prove illegal transportation of prohibited drugs under Section 4 of RA 6425 had been satisfactorily discharged.

• Facts Admitted Need Not Be Proved: The prosecution maintained that facts judicially known, presumed, admitted, or confessed need not be proved under Rule 129, Section 4 of the Rules on Evidence, and that the prosecution had established all the elements of the crime charged.

• Identity of the Confiscated Marijuana: Whether the discrepancy between the weight of the marijuana stated in the information (111.9 kilos) and the forensic chemist's report (115.66 kilos) renders the confiscated marijuana inadmissible as evidence.

• Number of Occupants in the Vehicle: Whether the trial court erred in finding that there were only two occupants — the appellants — in the vehicle where the alleged marijuana was confiscated.

• Knowledge of the Cargo: Whether the appellants knew that the cargo they were transporting was marijuana.

• Admissibility of the Confiscated Marijuana: Whether the warrantless search conducted at the checkpoint was lawful, rendering the confiscated marijuana admissible in evidence.

• Burden of Proof: Whether the trial court erred in shifting the burden of proving the commission of the offense to the appellants.

• Identity of the Confiscated Marijuana: No. The slight discrepancy in weight is not material, as the words "more or less" following the weight in kilos in the information declare that the number stated is merely an approximation. The marijuana examined by the forensic chemist was positively identified to be the same as those confiscated from the appellants.

• Number of Occupants in the Vehicle: No. The trial court gave credence to the positive and categorical statement of Sgt. Baillo that there were only two occupants — the appellants — inside the jeepney at the time, and there was no cogent reason to reverse this finding of fact. The testimony of Lawrence Balonglong did not corroborate the appellants' claim of other passengers.

• Knowledge of the Cargo: Yes. The appellants' version was not believable; it was inconceivable that they would not ask the names of strangers who approached them at night wanting to hire their jeepney, and incredible that they showed no curiosity as to why flowers were kept in closed tin cans and sealed sacks.

• Admissibility of the Confiscated Marijuana: Yes. The search was conducted within reasonable limits at a checkpoint, and even without the Valmonte ruling, the search was valid as a search incident to a lawful arrest, the appellants having been caught in flagrante delicto transporting prohibited drugs.

• Burden of Proof: No. The prosecution had satisfactorily discharged its burden, as the appellants themselves admitted that the confiscated marijuana was taken from their jeep while they were transporting it, and facts admitted need not be proved.

• Identity of the Confiscated Marijuana: The Court found that the marijuana examined by the forensic chemist, contained in three big round tin cans, one jute sack colored light green, and two plastic bags colored yellow and green, was positively identified to be the same as those confiscated from the appellants. Lt. Valeroso testified that Exhibits "B" (yellow plastic bag), "C" (light green jute sack), "D" (green plastic bag), "E," "F," and "G" (the three big cans) were the same articles he saw at the back of the jeepney. One of the appellants, Moises Maspil, even admitted that the articles identified by Lt. Valeroso were indeed the same articles confiscated from their jeepney. The words "more or less" following the weight in kilos in the information declare that the number stated is just an approximation, and the slight discrepancy is not material.

• Number of Occupants in the Vehicle: The Court applied the rule that inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses not on material points are not fatal, and minor inconsistencies are to be expected but must be disregarded if they do not affect the basic credibility of the evidence as a whole. The trial court gave credence to the positive and categorical statement of Sgt. Baillo that there were only two occupants — the appellants — inside the jeepney at the time. The Court found no cogent reason to reverse this finding of fact, noting that courts generally give full faith and credit to police officers when the facts and circumstances sustain the presumption that they have performed their duties in a regular manner under Rule 131, Section 5(m) of the Rules of Court. The testimony of Lawrence Balonglong did not corroborate the appellants' claim, as he admitted he was asleep at the time of the arrest and only saw the appellants already apprehended.

• Knowledge of the Cargo: The Court found the appellants' version not believable. It was inconceivable that the appellants would not even bother to ask the names of the strangers who approached them in a restaurant at night wanting to hire their jeepney, considering that they were familiar with the identity of the passenger, Luisa Mendoza, who hired them to transport her goods. It was likewise incredible that the appellants did not show the slightest curiosity as to why flowers were being kept in closed tin cans and sealed sacks and cellophane. The Court applied the rule that evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible itself, and no better test has yet been found to measure the value of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind.

• Admissibility of the Confiscated Marijuana: The Court applied the ruling in Valmonte vs. de Villa (G.R. No. 83988, September 29, 1989), which held that checkpoints during abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits, are part of the price paid for an orderly society and a peaceful community. The search was conducted within reasonable limits, as there was information that a sizeable volume of marijuana would be transported to take advantage of the All Saints Day holiday. The Court further held that even without the Valmonte ruling, the search would still be valid as a search incident to a lawful arrest under Section 12 of Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure and Rule 113, Section 5(a), since the appellants were caught in flagrante delicto transporting prohibited drugs at the time of their arrest. The Court distinguished People vs. Aminnudin (163 SCRA 402 [1988]), noting that in that case there was sufficient time and adequate information for the officers to have obtained a warrant, whereas in the present case there was no information as to the exact description of the vehicle and no definite time of arrival, and a jeepney cannot be equated with a passenger ship on the high seas.

• Burden of Proof: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that the appellants' own testimonies admitted that the confiscated marijuana was taken from their jeep while they were transporting it from Abatan, Buguias, Benguet to Baguio City. The prosecution's burden to prove illegal transportation of prohibited drugs under Section 4 of RA 6425 had been satisfactorily discharged. The Court applied the rule that each party must prove his own affirmative allegations, but facts judicially known, presumed, admitted, or confessed need not be proved under Rule 129, Section 4 of the Rules on Evidence.

• Checkpoint Searches — The manning of checkpoints by the military, when conducted within reasonable limits, is permissible and constitutes part of the price paid for an orderly society and a peaceful community during abnormal times. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the validity of the checkpoint search conducted by NARCOM operatives based on information that a sizeable volume of marijuana would be transported to Baguio City during the All Saints Day holiday.

• Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest — Under Section 12 of Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant. The Court held that the appellants were caught in flagrante delicto since they were transporting prohibited drugs at the time of their arrest, making the search valid under this exception to the warrant requirement.

• Inconsistencies in Testimony — Inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses not on material points are not fatal, and minor inconsistencies are to be expected but must be disregarded if they do not affect the basic credibility of the evidence as a whole. The Court applied this rule to reject the appellants' claim that Sgt. Baillo's testimony was full of inconsistencies.

• Credibility of Evidence — Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible itself, and no better test has yet been found to measure the value of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind. The Court applied this rule in rejecting the appellants' defense that they did not know the cargo was marijuana.

• Presumption of Regular Performance of Duty — Courts generally give full faith and credit to police officers when the facts and circumstances surrounding their acts sustain the presumption that they have performed their duties in a regular manner under Rule 131, Section 5(m) of the Rules of Court. The Court applied this presumption in favor of the NARCOM operatives who conducted the checkpoint and arrest.

• "True, the manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of abuse by the men in uniform, in the same manner that all government power is susceptible of abuse. But at the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort and even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during these abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits are part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community." — This passage from Valmonte vs. de Villa articulates the doctrinal basis for upholding checkpoint searches, balancing individual rights against the need for public order during abnormal times.

• "Well-settled is the rule that evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible itself. No better test has yet been found to measure the value of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind." — This passage states the standard for evaluating witness credibility, which the Court applied in rejecting the appellants' defense that they did not know the contents of their cargo.

• "This case falls squarely within the exceptions. The appellants were caught in flagrante delicto since they were transporting the prohibited drugs at the time of their arrest. A crime was actually being committed." — This passage identifies the basis for upholding the warrantless search as a search incident to a lawful arrest, the appellants having been caught in the act of committing the offense.

• People vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 83325, May 8, 1990 — Cited as controlling precedent for the rule that inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses not on material points are not fatal and minor inconsistencies must be disregarded if they do not affect the basic credibility of the evidence as a whole.

• People vs. Yap and Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 87088-89, May 9, 1990 — Cited in support of the presumption that police officers have performed their duties in a regular manner.

• People vs. Maribung, 149 SCRA 292, 297 [1987] — Cited as precedent for the rule that evidence to be believed must be credible itself and must conform to the knowledge and common experience of mankind.

• People vs. Aldana, G.R. No. 81817, July 27, 1989 — Cited in support of the credibility standard for evaluating witness testimony.

• People vs. Pascua, G.R. No. 82303, December 21, 1989 — Cited in support of the credibility standard for evaluating witness testimony.

• Valmonte vs. de Villa, G.R. No. 83988, September 29, 1989 — Controlling precedent upholding the validity of checkpoint searches when conducted within reasonable limits, applied to validate the NARCOM checkpoint in this case.

• People vs. Tangliben, G.R. No. 63630, April 6, 1990 — Cited in support of the validity of the search incident to a lawful arrest where the accused were caught in flagrante delicto.

• People vs. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA 402 [1988] — Distinguished from the present case; in that case, the officers had sufficient time and adequate information to obtain a warrant, whereas in the present case there was no information as to the exact description of the vehicle and no definite time of arrival.

• Section 4, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended — The penal provision defining and punishing the illegal transportation of prohibited drugs, under which the appellants were charged and convicted.

• Section 12, Rule 126, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant; applied to validate the search of the appellants' jeep as incident to their lawful arrest.

• Section 5(a), Rule 113, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Provides that a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person 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 of the appellants who were caught in flagrante delicto.

• Section 5(m), Rule 131, Rules of Court — Establishes the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed; applied in favor of the NARCOM operatives who conducted the checkpoint and arrest.

• Section 4, Rule 129, Rules on Evidence — Provides that facts judicially known, presumed, admitted, or confessed need not be proved; applied to hold that the appellants' admission of transporting the marijuana discharged the prosecution's burden of proof.

Fernan, C.J., Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concurred.