TodayisWednesday,March01,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.180452January10,2011

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,
vs.
NGYIKBUN,KWOKWAICHENG,CHANGCHAUNSHI,CHUASHILOUHWAN,KANSHUNMIN,AND
RAYMONDS.TAN,AccusedAppellants.

DECISION

VELASCO,JR.,J.:

TheCase

ThisisanappealfromtheJanuary16,2007DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CRH.C.No.00485
entitled People of the Philippines v. Ng Yik Bun, Kwok Wai Cheng, Chang Chaun Shi, Chua Shilou Hwan, Kan
ShunMinandRaymondS.Tan,whichaffirmedtheApril1,2004DecisioninCriminalCaseNo.Q0199437ofthe
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103 in Quezon City. The RTC found accusedappellants guilty beyond
reasonabledoubtofviolatingSection16,ArticleIIIofRepublicActNo.(RA)6425ortheDangerousDrugsActof
1972.

TheFacts

AnInformationindictedaccusedappellantsofthefollowing:

Thatonoraboutthe24thdayofAugust2000,atBarangayBignayII,MunicipalityofSariaya,ProvinceofQuezon,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and there knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously transport, deliver and distribute, without authority of law, on board an L300 Mitsubishi van, bearing
Plate No. UBU 827, and have in their possession, custody, and control, without the corresponding license or
prescription, twentyfive (25) heatsealed transparent plastic bags containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
(shabu),aregulateddrug,eachcontaining:2.954grams,2.901grams,2.926grams,2.820grams,2.977grams,
2.568 grams, 2.870 grams, 2.941 grams, 2.903 grams, 2.991 grams, 2.924 grams, 2.872 grams, 2.958 grams,
2.972 grams, 2.837 grams, 2.908 grams, 2.929 grams, 2.932 grams, 2.899 grams, 2.933 grams, 2.938 grams,
2.943grams,2.955grams,2.938gramsand2.918grams,respectively,withatotalweightof72.707kilos,and
one hundred forty seven (147) selfsealing transparent plastic bags likewise containing Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride(shabu),alsoaregulateddrug,withatotalweightof291.350kilos,orwithagrandtotalweightof
364.057kilos.

That the above acts were committed by a syndicate with the use of two (2) motor vehicles, namely: L300
MitsubishiVanbearingPlateNo.UBU827andaNissanSentraExaltacarwithoutPlateNumber.

Contrarytolaw.1

AssummarizedintheappealedCAdecision,thefactsareasfollows:

OnAugust24,2000,ataround9:00p.m.,Capt.DaniloIbonofTaskForceAduanareceivedinformationfroman
operative that there was an ongoing shipment of contraband in Barangay Bignay II, Sariaya, Quezon Province.
Upon instructions from his superior, Major Carlo Magno Tabo, Capt. Ibon formed a team in coordination with a
Philippine National Police detachment, and, along with the operative, the team then proceeded to Villa Vicenta
ResortinBarangayBignayII,Sariaya.

Themembersoftheteamwereabletoobservethegoingsonattheresortfromadistanceofaround50meters.
TheyspottedsixChineselookingmenloadingbagscontainingawhitesubstanceintoawhitevan.Havingbeen
noticed, Capt. Ibon identified his team and asked accusedappellant Chua Shilou Hwan (Hwan) what they were
loading on the van. Hwan replied that it was shabu and pointed, when probed further, to accusedappellant
RaymondTanastheleader.Atotalof172bagsofsuspectedshabuwerethenconfiscated.Bundlesofnoodles
(bihon)werealsofoundonthepremises.

A laboratory report prepared later by Police Inspector Mary Jean Geronimo on samples of the 172 confiscated
bagsshowedthewhitesubstancetobeshabu.

On January 10, 2001, an Amended Information for violation of Sec. 16, Article III of RA 6425 was filed against
accusedappellants,whoenteredapleaofnotguiltyuponrearraignment.

Accusedappellantsallmaintainedtheirinnocenceandpresentedthefollowingdefenses:

(1) Accusedappellant Hwan testified that he was planning to buy cheap goods at Villa Vicenta Resort on
August24,2000,whenhesawavanfullofbihonattheresortandinquiredifitwasforsale.Hewentto
relievehimself15metersawayfromthevan.Agroupofpoliceofficersarrestedhimuponhisreturn.

(2)AccusedappellantTantestifiedthathewasabusinessmancollectingadebtinLucenaCityonAugust
24,2000.Hewasatarestaurantwithhisdriverwhenthreepersonsidentifiedthemselvesaspoliceofficers
and forcibly brought him inside a car. He was handcuffed, blindfolded, and badly beaten. He was later
brought to a beach and was ordered to hold some bags while being photographed with five Chinese
lookingmenhesawforthefirsttime.Atricycledriver,RickyPineda,corroboratedhisstorybytestifyingthat
hesawTanbeingforcedintoawhiteNissancaronAugust24,2000.

(3)AccusedappellantNgYikBun(Bun)testifiedthathearrivedinthePhilippinesasatouristonAugust22,
2000. On August 24, 2000, he was at a beach with some companions when four armed men arrested
them.Hewasmadetoposenexttosomeplasticbagsalongwithotheraccusedappellants,whomhedid
notpersonallyknow.Hewasthenchargedwithillegalpossessionofdrugsatthepolicestation.Afriendof
his,accusedappellantKwokWaiCheng(Cheng),corroboratedhisstory.

(4) Accusedappellant Kan Shun Min (Min) testified that he arrived in the Philippines on July 1, 2000 for
businessandpleasure.OnAugust24,2000,hecheckedintoabeachresort.Whilewalkingthere,hewas
suddenlyaccostedbyfourorfivemenwhopokedgunsathim.Hewasbroughttoacottagewherehesaw
some unfamiliar Chineselooking individuals. He likewise testified that he was made to take out white
packages from a van while being photographed. His friend, accusedappellant Chang Chaun Shi (Shi),
corroboratedhisstory.

TheRTCconvictedaccusedappellantsofthecrimecharged.ThedispositiveportionoftheRTCDecisionreads:

ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby renders judgment finding the six (6) accused namely Ng Yik Bun, Kwok Wai
Cheng,ChangChaunShi,ChuaShilouHwan,KanShunMinandRaymondS.Tan(somealsoknownbyother
names),GUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofviolatingSection16ofRA6425,asamendedandeachishereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay a fine of Five Million Pesos
(P5,000,000.00)each.

The shabu involved in this case and their accompanying paraphernalia are ordered disposed of in accordance
withlaw,nowRA9165.Thetwo(2)vehiclesareforfeitedinfavorofthegovernment.

SOORDERED.2

In questioning the RTC Decision before the CA, accusedappellants Bun, Cheng, Shi, Min, and Tan raised the
loneissueof:whetherthetrialcourterredinrulingthattherewasavalidsearchandarrestdespitetheabsence
ofawarrant.

Ontheotherhand,accusedappellantHwansoughtanacquittalonthebasisofthefollowingsubmissions:

Thetrialcourterredwhenitheldasvalidthewarrantlesssearch,seizureandsubsequentarrestof
the accusedappellants despite the nonconcurrence of the requisite circumstances that justify a
warrantlessarrestasheldinthecaseofPeoplevs.[Cuizon].

II

The trial court violated Article III, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution as well as Rule 115 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure when it heard the case at bench on June 26, 2001 at the
chemistrydivisionofthePNPCrimeLaboratoryinCampCrame,QuezonCitywithoutthepresence
ofboththehereinaccusedappellantandhiscounseldeparte.
 III

The trial court erred when it issued and dictated in open hearing a verbal order denying accuseds
formal "Motion to Suppress Illegally Procured Evidence" upon a [ratiocination] that is manifestly
contrarytolaw[and]jurisprudencesetintheCuizoncase,supra.

IV

Thetrialcourterredwhenwithlackofthedesiredcircumspection,itsweepinglyruledtheadmission
in evidence the 731 exhibits listed in the prosecutions 43page formal offer of evidence over the
itemizedwrittenobjectionsofthedefenseinaterseverbalorder(bereftofreasonforthedenialof
the raised objections) dictated in open hearing which reads: "All the exhibits of the prosecution are
herebyadmitted.Thecourtbelievesthatasfarastheevidencesubmittedgoes,theseexhibitsofthe
prosecution consisting of several plastic bags of shabu were not yet shown to be the fruit of a
poisonousplant."xxx

Thetrialcourtalsoerredinadmittingtheprosecutionsphotographs(Exhibit"K"and"M,"inclusiveof
their submarkings), the photographer who took the shots not having taken the witness stand to
declare,asrequiredbytherules,thecircumstancesunderwhichthephotographsweretaken.

VI

ThetrialcourterredwhenittriedandappliedtheprovisionsofR.A.9165,theDangerousDrugsAct
of2002,intheinstantcaseeventhough[the]crimechargedtookplaceon24August2000.

VII

Thetrialcourterredinfindingconspiracyamongtheaccused.3

The appellate court found accusedappellants contentions unmeritorious as it consequently affirmed intoto the
RTCDecision.

The CA ruled that, contrary to accusedappellants assertion, they were first arrested before the seizure of the
contrabandwasmade.TheCAheldthataccusedappellantswerecaughtinflagrantedelictoloadingtransparent
plastic bags containing white crystalline substance into an L300 van which, thus, justified their arrests and the
seizureofthecontraband.TheCAagreedwiththeprosecutionthattheurgencyofthesituationmeantthatthe
buybustteamhadnotimetosecureasearchwarrant.Moreover,theCAalsofoundthatthewarrantlessseizure
ofthetransparentplasticbagscanlikewisebesustainedundertheplainviewdoctrine.

The CA debunked accusedappellant Hwans arguments in seriatim. First, the CA ruled that People v. Cuizon4
wasnotapplicabletotheinstantcase,as,unlikeinCuizon,theapprehendingofficersimmediatelyactedonthe
informationtheyhadreceivedaboutanongoingshipmentofdrugs.

Second, the CA also noted that accusedappellant Hwan effectively waived his right to be present during the
inspection of exhibits and hearing, for the manifestation made by the prosecution that accusedappellant Hwan
waivedhisrighttobepresentwasneverraisedinissuebeforethetrialcourt.

Andthird,theCAfoundaccusedappellantHwansotherargumentsuntenable.Itheldthatthetrialcourtcorrectly
admittedExhibits"K"and"M"evenifthephotographerwasnotpresentedasawitness.TheCAbaseditsruling
on Sison v. People,5 which held that photographs can be identified either by the photographer or by any other
competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy. It agreed with the Solicitor General that
accusedappellantswerecorrectlytriedandconvictedbythetrialcourtunderRA6425andnotRA9165,ascan
begleanedfromthefallooftheRTCDecision.TheCAlikewisedismissedtheargumentthatconspiracywasnot
proved by the prosecution, noting that the evidence presented established that accusedappellants were
performing"theirrespectivetask[s]withtheobjectiveofloadingtheplasticbagsofshabuintoanL300van."6

TheCAdisposedoftheappealasfollows:

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated April 1, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103, in
CriminalCaseNo.Q0199437,isherebyAFFIRMEDintoto.

SOORDERED.7

On February 18, 2008, the Court, acting on the appeal of accusedappellants, required the parties to submit
supplementalbriefsiftheysodesired.
OnMarch27,2008,accusedappellantsBun,Cheng,Shi,Min,andTanfiledtheirSupplementalBriefonthesole
issuethat:

THEREWASNOVALIDSEARCHANDARRESTDUETOABSENCEOFAWARRANT

On June 4, 2008, accusedappellant Hwan filed his Supplemental Brief, raising the following errors, allegedly
committedbythetrialcourt:

THETRIALCOURTVIOLATEDARTICLEIII,SECTION14OFTHE1987CONSTITUTIONASWELL
AS RULE 115 OF THE REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WHEN IT CONDUCTED A
HEARINGONJUNE26,2001ATTHECHEMISTRYDIVISIONOFTHEPNPCRIMELABORATORY
INCAMPCRAME,QUEZONCITYWITHOUTTHEPRESENCEOFBOTHTHEHEREINACCUSED
APPELLANTANDHISCOUNSELINSUCHVITAL[PROCEEDINGS].

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD AS VALID THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH, SEIZURE
AND SUBSEQUENT ARREST OF THE HEREIN APPELLANT DESPITE THE NONCONCURRENCE
OFTHEREQUISITECIRCUMSTANCESTHATJUSTIFYAWARRANTLESSARREST.

Essentially, accusedappellants claim that no valid in flagrante delicto arrest was made prior to the seizure and
thatthepoliceofficersplacedaccusedappellantsunderarrestevenwhentherewasnoevidencethatanoffense
was being committed. Since there was no warrant of arrest, they argue that the search sans a search warrant
subsequently made on them was illegal. They contend that a seizure of any evidence as a result of an illegal
searchisinadmissibleinanyproceedingforanypurpose.

Accusedappellant Hwan additionally claims that he was deliberately excluded when the trial court conducted a
hearingonJune26,2001toidentify172bagsofshabufortrialpurposes.Heassertsthatnoformalnoticeofthe
hearingwassenttohimorhiscounsel,tohisprejudice.

TheCourtsRuling

Ontheissueofwarrantlessarrest,itisapropostomentionwhattheBillofRightsunderthepresentConstitution
providesinpart:

SEC.2.Therightofthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,houses,papers,andeffectsagainstunreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and 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, and particularly
describingtheplacetobesearchedandthepersonsorthingstobeseized.

A settled exception to the right guaranteed in the aforequoted provision is that of an arrest made during the
commissionofacrime,whichdoesnotrequireawarrant.Suchwarrantlessarrestisconsideredreasonableand
validunderRule113,Sec.5(a)oftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedure,whichstates:

Sec.5.Arrestwithoutwarrantwhenlawful.Apeaceofficeroraprivatepersonmay,withoutawarrant,arrest
aperson:

(a)When,inhispresence,thepersontobearrestedhascommitted,isactuallycommitting,orisattemptingto
commitanoffense(Emphasissupplied.)

The foregoing proviso refers to arrest in flagrante delicto.8 In the instant case, contrary to accusedappellants
contention, there was indeed a valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto. Consider the circumstances
immediatelypriortoandsurroundingthearrestofaccusedappellants:(1)thepoliceofficersreceivedinformation
fromanoperativeaboutanongoingshipmentofcontraband(2)thepoliceofficers,withtheoperative,proceeded
toVillaVicentaResortinBarangayBignayII,Sariaya,Quezon(3)theyobservedthegoingsonattheresortfrom
a distance of around 50 meters and (4) they spotted the six accusedappellants loading transparent bags
containing a white substance into a white L300 van. The following exchange between Capt. Ibon and the
prosecutorshedslightontheparticipationofallsixaccusedappellants:

Q: Upon arriving at Villa Vicenta Resort in Brgy. Bignay II, [in] what specific area [did] you position
yourselves?

A:Initiallywe[were]aboutthreehundredmetersawayfromVillaVicentaResort,thenwewalked[stealthily]
soasnotto[be][spotted]untilwewereaboutfiftymeterssir.
Q:Soyou[positioned]yourselfaboutfiftymetersawayfromthepointofVillaVicentaResort?

A:Fromtheactuallocationwesawaboutsixpersonnelwalkingtogetherloadingcontraband.

Q:Yousaidyou[were]aboutfiftymetersawayfromthesesixpersonswhowereloadingcontraband,isthat
whatyoumean?

A:Yessir.

Q: In that place where you [positioned] yourself, could you tell us, what was the lighting condition in the
placewhereyoupositionedyourselves?

A:Itwastotallydarkinourplacesir.

Q:Howaboutthepositionofthesixpersonswhowereloadingcontraband?

A:Theywerewelllightedsir.

Q:Whydoyousaythattheyarewelllighted?

A:Therewereseveral[fluorescent]lampssir.

Q:Where?

A:Onesearchlightplacednearwheretheywereloadingtheshipmentsir.

Q:Howabouttheother?

A:Abouttwofluorescentlampsatthehousenearthesixpersonsyourhonor.

COURT:Aretheseportablelamps:

A:Fixedlampsyourhonor.

Q:Whereelse?

A:Anotherattherightcorner[.]Therewasalsosomewhatamultipurposehouseandit[was]welllighted
yourhonor.

Q:Thisisaresortandthatmultipurposehousethatyouarereferringtoarethecottagesoftheresort?

A:Yesyourhonor.

FISCAL:Yousaidyousawsixpersonswhowereloadinggoods[.]Inwhatvehicle[werethey]transferring
thosethings?

A:Into[an]L300vansir.

Q:Whatisthecolorofthevan?

A:Whitesir.

Q:Whatdidyouseethatthesesixpersons[were]loading?

A:Wesaw[them]holdingwhiteplasticwithwhitesubstanceyourhonor.

Q:Whatcontainer[werethey]loading?

A:Actuallytherewereseveralcheckeredbagsandotherplastic[bags]sir.

Q:How[were]theyloadingthesebags?

A:[Manually]yourhonor.

Q:Willyoupleasedescribehowthey[were]loadingit,Mr.Witness?

A:Actuallytheplasticbags[somewere]repacked[into]checkered[bags]whileothers[were]loadinginside
thecheckeredbagsir.

Q:Didtheyputthatontheirshoulderorwhat?
A:Holdingandholding[sic]sir.

Q:Nobodycarrying[it]ontheirback?

A:Nobodysir.

xxxx

Q:Yousaidyousawthesesixpersons,willyoupleaselookaroundthiscourtroomandtellusifthesesix
personsthatyouarereferringtoarepresent?

COURT: Considering that there are many persons inside this courtroom, will you please stand up and
please[tap]theshoulderofthesesixpersons?

xxxx

INTERPRETER:Witnesstappedthe[shoulders]ofsixmalepersonsinsidethecourtroom.

xxxx

FISCAL:Maywemanifestyourhonorthatwhenthesesixpersonsstoodupwhentheirnames[were]called
on the basis [of] what [was] written [on] the information [were] once tapped on their shoulder by this
witness.

ThelastquestionIhave[is]howlongyoustayedinthispositionwatchingthesesixpersonsloadingthose
[products]intheL300van?

A:Tentofifteenminutessir.

Q:Withinthatperiodcouldyoutelluswhattranspired?

A:IcalledMajorTabotoinform[himof]whatIsaw,IcalledMajorTabothroughthehandheldradiosir.

Q:WhatwasthereplyofmajorTabowithrespecttoyourinformation?

A:Hedirectedmetogetclosertothesesixpersonsandfindoutifreallythecontrabandisshabuthatwas
firstreportedsir.

Q:Sodidyouinfactgocloser?

A:Yessir.

Q:How[close]wereyou[to]thesixpersonsatthetime?

A: When we were closing [in] somebody noticed us and they were surprised, I immediately shouted
"Freeze,dontmove,weareFilipinosoldiers,"wefurtheridentified[ourselves]sir.

Q:Whatwasthereactionofthesixpersonswhenyoushoutedthosewords?

A:They[froze]sir.

xxxx

Q:Whenyouwentcloserandthey[froze],whathappened?

A:IaskedthemwhoamongthemareEnglishspeaking?

Q:Whatwasthereplygiventoyou?

A:Somebodyreplied"tagaloglang."

Q:Whowasthatpersonwhoreplied"tagaloglang?"

A:ChuaShilouHwansir.

Q:Willyouplease[identify]foruswhoansweredthatin[T]agalog?

COURT:Please[tap]hisshoulder.

A:Thismansir.
COURT:WitnesstappedtheshoulderofamanwhoidentifiedhimselfasChuaShilouHwan.

CHUASHILOUHWAN:Opo.

FISCAL:Afteransweringyou[with]"tagaloglang,"whathappened?

A:Ifurtheraskedthem"Anoangdalaninyo?"

Q:Whatwasthereply?

A:ChuaShilouHwansaidshabu.

Q:So[what]didyoudonext?

A:Iaskedthemwhoistheirleader,sir.

Q:Whatwasthereply?

A:HetoldmeitwasRaymondTan,sir.

Q:Isheinsidethiscourtroomnow?

A:Yessir.

COURT:Pleasetap[his]shoulder.

WITNESS:Thismansir.

COURT:IkawbaRaymondTan?

INTERPRETER:Amanstoodand[nodded]hishead.

xxxx

FISCAL:Nowafterthey[froze],whatdidyoudo?

A: I inspected the contraband and I found these bags and I immediately called Major Tabo and informed
[himof]themattersir.

Q:Howmanybagswereyouabletoconfiscateinthescene?

A:Allinall172yourhonor.

Q:That172,oneofthemisthebaginfrontofyou[which]youidentifiedearlier?

A:Yessir.

Q: When you saw that bag could you tell us what particular [contents] attracted you upon seeing these
bags?

A:Itwasmarkedbythemembers(interrupted).

Q:Nowhatattractedyou?

A:Somethingcrystallinewhitesir.

Q:Areyoureferringtoallthebags?

A:Allthebagssir.9xxx

Evidently,thearrestingpoliceofficershadprobablecausetosuspectthataccusedappellantswereloading
andtransportingcontraband,moresowhenHwan,uponbeingaccosted,readilymentionedthattheywere
loading shabu and pointed to Tan as their leader. Thus, the arrest of accusedappellantswho were
caught in flagrante delicto of possessing, and in the act of loading into a white L300 van, shabu, a
prohibiteddrugunderRA6425,asamendedisvalid.

InPeoplev.Alunday,weheldthatwhenapoliceofficerseestheoffense,althoughatadistance,orhears
the disturbances created thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene, he may effect an arrest without a
warrantonthebasisofSec.5(a),Rule113oftheRulesofCourt,astheoffenseisdeemedcommittedin
 his presence or within his view.10 In the instant case, it can plausibly be argued that accusedappellants
werecommittingtheoffenseofpossessingshabuandwereintheactofloadingtheminawhitevanwhen
the police officers arrested them. As aptly noted by the appellate court, the crime was committed in the
presenceofthepoliceofficerswiththecontraband,insidetransparentplasticcontainers,inplainviewand
dulyobservedbythearrestingofficers.Andtowritefinistotheissueofanyirregularityintheirwarrantless
arrest, the Court notes, as it has consistently held, that accusedappellants are deemed to have waived
theirobjectionstotheirarrestfornotraisingtheissuebeforeenteringtheirplea.11

Moreover,presentintheinstantcasearealltheelementsofillegalpossessionofdrugs:(1)theaccusedis
in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug (2) such possession is not
authorized by law and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug.12 Accused
appellantswerepositivelyidentifiedincourtastheindividualscaughtloadingandpossessingillegaldrugs.
They were found to be in possession of prohibited drugs without proof that they were duly authorized by
lawtopossessthem.Havingbeencaughtinflagrantedelicto,thereis,therefore,aprimafacieevidenceof
animus possidendi on the part of accusedappellants.13 There is, thus, no merit to the argument of the
defensethatawarrantwasneededtoarrestaccusedappellants.

Accusedappellants were not able to show that there was any truth to their allegation of a frameup in
rebutting the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. They relied on mere denials, in contrast with the
testimony of Capt. Ibon, who testified that he and his team saw accusedappellants loading plastic bags
withawhitecrystallinesubstanceintoanL300vanattheVillaVicentaResort.Accusedappellants,except
for Tan, claimed that they were ordered by the police officers to act like they were loading bags onto the
van.AccusedappellantTantoldadifferenttaleandclaimshewasarrestedinsidearestaurant.Butasthe
trial court found, the persons who could have corroborated their version of events were not presented in
court.TheonlywitnesspresentedbyTan,atricycledriverwhosetestimonycorroboratedTansalone,was
notfoundbythetrialcourttobecredible.

Asnoillmotivecanbeimputedtotheprosecutionswitnesses,weupholdthepresumptionofregularityin
theperformanceofofficialdutiesandaffirmthetrialcourtsfindingthatthepoliceofficerstestimoniesare
deservingoffullfaithandcredit.Appellatecourtsgenerallywillnotdisturbthetrialcourtsassessmentofa
witness credibility unless certain material facts and circumstances have been overlooked or arbitrarily
disregarded.14Wefindnoreasontodeviatefromthisruleintheinstantcase.

Ontheallegedlackofnoticeofhearing,itisnowtoolateforaccusedappellantHwantoclaimaviolationof
his right to examine the witnesses against him. The records show the following exchange on June 26,
2001:

FISCALLUGTO:

I would like to manifes[t] that Atty. Agoot, counsel of accused Chua Shilou Hwan, waived his right to be
presentfortodaystrialforpurposesofidentificationoftheallegedshabu.

ATTYSAVELLANO:

[Are]wemadetounderstandthatthishearingisforidentificationofshabuonly?

FISCALLUGTO:

Yes despite the testimony of the Forensic Chemist, this is for continuation with the direct testimony for
purposesofidentificationwhichwasconfiscatedorseizedbythejointoperationoftheMilitaryandthePNP
atSariaya,Quezon.

Fortherecord,this[is]forthecontinuationofthedirecttestimonyofForensicChemistMaryJeanGeronimo.15

As the records confirm, accusedappellant Hwan and his counsel were not present when the forensic chemist
testified.TheprosecutionmadeamanifestationtotheeffectthataccusedappellantHwanwaivedhisrighttobe
presentatthathearing.YetHwandidnotquestionthisbeforethetrialcourt.Noevidenceofdeliberateexclusion
wasshown.Ifnonoticeofhearingweremadeuponhimandhiscounsel,theyshouldhavebroughtthisinissueat
thetrial,notatthelatestageonappeal. 1 a v v p h i1

Alltold,weholdthatthefindingsofboththeRTCandtheCAmustbeaffirmed.Thetrialcourtsdeterminationas
tothecredibilityofwitnessesanditsfindingsoffactshouldbeaccordedgreatweightandrespectmoresowhen
affirmed by the appellate court. To reiterate, a look at the records shows no facts of substance and value that
havebeenoverlooked,which,ifconsidered,mightaffecttheoutcomeoftheinstantappeal.Deferencetothetrial
courts findings must be made as it was in the position to easily detect whether a witness is telling the truth or
not.16
PenaltyImposed

Accusedappellants were each sentenced by the lower court to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of PhP
5,000,000. This is within the range provided by RA 6425, as amended.17 We, therefore, affirm the penalty
imposedonaccusedappellants.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CAG.R. CRH.C. No. 00485, finding accused
appellantsNgYikBun,KwokWaiCheng,ChangChaunShi,ChuaShilouHwan,KanShunMin,andRaymondS.
TanguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofviolatingSec.16,Art.IIIofRA6425,asamended,isAFFIRMEDINTOTO.

SOORDERED.

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1Rollo,p.5.

2CArollo,p.46.PennedbyJudgeJaimeN.Salazar.

3Id.at124125.

4G.R.No.109287,April18,1996,256SCRA325.

5G.R.Nos.10828083&11493133,November16,1995,250SCRA58,7576.

6Rollo,p.25.

7 Id. at 26. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices
RemediosSalazarFernandoandJoseC.Mendoza(nowamemberofthisCourt).
8People v. Alunday, G.R. No. 181546, September 3, 2008, 564 SCRA 135, 146 citing People v. Doria,
G.R.No.125299,January22,1999,301SCRA668.

9TSN,July24,2001,pp.2234.

10Supranote8,at147citingPeoplev.Sucro,G.R.No.93239,March18,1991,195SCRA388.

11 People v. Tidula, G.R. No. 123273, July 16, 1998, 292 SCRA 596, 611 People v. Montilla, G.R. No.
123872, January 30, 1998, 285 SCRA 703 People v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 112035, January 16, 1998, 284
SCRA 199, 210 People v. Mahusay, G.R. No. 91483, November 18, 1997, 282 SCRA 80, 87 People v.
Rivera,G.R.No.87187,June29,1995,245SCRA421,430andPeoplev.Lopez,Jr.,G.R.No.104662,
June16,1995,245SCRA95,105.
 12Peoplev.Sy,G.R.No.147348,September24,2002,389SCRA594,604605citingManaliliv.Courtof
Appeals,G.R.No.113447,October9,1997,280SCRA400,418.
13Peoplev.Pagkalinawan,G.R.No.184805,March3,2010.

14 People v. Gregorio, Jr., G.R. No. 174474, May 25, 2007, 523 SCRA 216, 227 citing Peoplev.Abao,
G.R.No.142728,January23,2002,374SCRA431.
15TSN,June26,2001,p.1.

16 People v. Macabare, G.R. No. 179941, August 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 119, 132 citing People v. Mateo,
G.R.No.179036,July28,2008,560SCRA375,394.

17Secs.16and17ofRA6425,asamended,provide:

Sec.16.PossessionorUseofRegulatedDrugs.Thepenaltyofreclusionperpetuatodeathanda
finerangingfromfivehundredthousandpesos[PhP500,000]totenmillionpesosshallbeimposed
uponanypersonwhoshallpossessoruseanyregulateddrugwithoutthecorrespondinglicenseor
prescription,subjecttotheprovisionsofSection20hereof.

Sec. 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous
DrugsActof1972,isherebyamendedtoreadasfollows:

Sec.20.ApplicationofPenalties,ConfiscationandForfeitureoftheProceedsorInstrumentsofthe
Crime.ThepenaltiesforoffensesunderSection3,4,7,8and9ofArticleIIandSections14,14A,
15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the
followingquantities:

xxxx

3.200gramsormoreofshabuormethylamphetaminehydrochloride.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation