Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Lo Ho Wing Alias Peter Lo, Lim Cheng Huat Alias Antonio Lim and Reynaldo Tia y Santiago, Defendants. Lo Ho Wing Alias Peter Lo, Defendant-Appellant.
The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Lo Ho Wing Alias Peter Lo, Lim Cheng Huat Alias Antonio Lim and Reynaldo Tia y Santiago, Defendants. Lo Ho Wing Alias Peter Lo, Defendant-Appellant.
tip from one of its informers about an organized group engaged in the
importation of illegal drugs, smuggling of contraband goods, and gunrunning.
After an evaluation of the information thus received, a project codenamed
"OPLAN SHARON 887" was created in order to bust the suspected
syndicate.
As part of the operations, the recruitment of confidential men and "deep
penetration agents' was carried out to infiltrate the crime syndicate. One of
those recruited was the discharged accused, Reynaldo Tia (hereinafter
referred to as Tia).
Tia was introduced to his co-accused Lim Cheng Huat (hereinafter referred
to as Lim) by another confidential agent named George on August 3, 1987.
Lim expressed a desire to hire a male travelling companion for his business
nips abroad. Tia offered his services and was hired.
Lim and Tia met anew on several occasions to make arrangements for a trip
to China. In the course of those meetings, Tia was introduced to Peter Lo
(hereinafter referred to as appellant), whom Tia found out to be the person
he was to accompany to China in lieu of Lim.
As a "deep penetration agent," Tia regularly submitted reports of his
undercover activities on the suspected criminal syndicate. Meanwhile, the
officer-in-charge of OPLAN SHARON 887, Captain Luisito Palmera, filed
with his superiors the reports submitted to him, and officially informed the
Dangerous Drugs Board of Tia's activities.
On October 4, 1987, appellant and Tia left for Hongkong on board a
Philippine Airlines flight. Before they departed, Tia was able to telephone
Captain Palmera to inform him of their expected date of return to the
Philippines as declared in his round-trip plane ticket-October 6, 1987 at two
o'clock in the afternoon.
Contrary to law. 1
The antecedent facts of the case as found by the trial court are as follows:
In July 1987, the Special Operations Group, a unit of the Criminal
Investigation Service (CIS) of the Philippine Constabulary (PC), received a
The day after they arrived in Hongkong, Tia and appellant boarded a train
bound for Guangzhou, in the People's Republic of China. Upon arriving
there, they checked in at a hotel, and rested for a few hours. The pair
thereafter went to a local store where appellant purchased six (6) tin cans of
tea. Tia saw the paper tea bags when the cans were opened for examination
during the purchase. Afterwards, they returned to the hotel. Appellant kept
the cans of tea in his hotel room. That evening, Tia went to appellant's room
to talk to him. Upon entering, he saw two other men with appellant. One was
fixing the tea bags, while the other was burning substance on a piece of
aluminum foil using a cigarette lighter. Appellant joined the second man and
sniffed the smoke emitted by the burning substance. Tia asked the latter
what they would be bringing back to the Philippines. He was informed that
their cargo consisted of Chinese drugs. Tia stayed in the room for about
twenty minutes before going back to his room to sleep.
The next day, October 6,1987, the two returned to Manila via a China
Airlines flight. Appellant had with him his red traveling bag with wheels.
Before departing from Guangzhou however, customs examiners inspected
their luggage. The tin cans of tea were brought out from the traveling bag of
appellant. The contents of the cans were not closely examined, and
appellant was cleared along with Tia.
The plane landed at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), then
named Manila International Airport, on schedule. Lim met the newly-arrived
pair at the arrival area. Lim talked to appellant, while Tia, upon being
instructed, looked after their luggage. After Lim and appellant finished their
conversation, the latter hailed a taxicab. Appellant and Tia boarded the
taxicab after putting their luggage inside the back compartment of the
vehicle. Lim followed in another taxi cab.
Meanwhile, a team composed of six operatives headed by Captain Palmera
was formed to act on the tip given by Tia. On the expected date of arrival,
the team proceeded to the NAIA. Captain Palmera notified the Narcotics
Command (NARCOM) Detachment at the airport for coordination. After a
briefing, the operatives were ordered to take strategic positions around the
arrival area. Two operatives stationed just outside the arrival area were the
first ones to spot the suspects emerging therefrom. Word was passed on to
the other members of the team that the suspects were in sight. Appellant
was pulling along his red traveling bag while Tia was carrying a shoulder
bag. The operatives also spotted Lim meeting their quarry.
Upon seeing appellant and Tia leave the airport, the operatives who first
spotted them followed them. Along Imelda Avenue, the car of the operatives
overtook the taxicab ridden by appellant and Tia and cut into its path forcing
the taxi driver to stop his vehicle. Meanwhile, the other taxicab carrying Lim
sped away in an attempt to escape. The operatives disembarked from their
car, approached the taxicab, and asked the driver to open the baggage
compartment. Three pieces of luggage were retrieved from the back
compartment of the vehicle. The operatives requested from the suspects
permission to search their luggage. A tin can of tea was taken out of the red
traveling bag owned by appellant. Sgt. Roberto Cayabyab, one of the
operatives, pried the lid open, pulled out a paper tea bag from the can and
pressed it in the middle to feel its contents. Some crystalline white powder
resembling crushed alum came out of the bag. The sergeant then opened
the tea bag and examined its contents more closely. Suspecting the
crystalline powder to be a dangerous drug, he had the three traveling bags
opened for inspection. From the red traveling bag, a total of six (6) tin cans
were found, including the one previously opened. Nothing else of
consequence was recovered from the other bags. Tia and appellant were
taken to the CIS Headquarters in Quezon City for questioning.
Meanwhile, the second taxicab was eventually overtaken by two other
operatives on Retiro Street, Quezon City. Lim was likewise apprehended
and brought to the CIS Headquarters for interrogation.
During the investigation of the case, the six tin cans recovered from the
traveling bag of appellant were opened and examined. They contained a
total of fifty-six (56) paper tea bags with white crystalline powder inside
instead of tea leaves.
The tea bag opened by Sgt. Cayabyab during the search and seizure was
sent to the PC-INP Crime Laboratory for preliminary examination. Tests
conducted on a sample of the crystalline powder inside the tea bag yielded a
positive result that the specimen submitted was metamphetamine. Samples
from each of the fifty-six (56) tea bags were similarly tested. The tests were
also positive for metamphetamine. Hence, the three suspects were indicted.
In rendering a judgment of conviction, the trial court gave full credence to the
testimonies of the government anti-narcotics operatives, to whom the said
court applied the well-settled presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duties.
Appellant now assigns three errors alleged to have been committed by the
trial court, namely:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THE
SEARCH AND SEIZURE ON THE ACCUSED AS
ILLEGAL.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED
GUILTY
OF
DELIVERING,
DISPATCHING
OR
TRANSPORTING METAMPHETAMINE, A REGULATED
DRUG.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISCHARGING
REYNALDO
TIA
TO
TESTIFY
FOR
THE
PROSECUTION. 2
We affirm.
Anent the first assignment of error, appellant contends that the warrantless
search and seizure made against the accused is illegal for being violative of
Section 2, Article III of the Constitution. He reasons that the PC-CIS officers
concerned could very well have procured a search warrant since they had
been informed of the date and time of a arrival of the accused at the NAIA
well ahead of time, specifically two (2) days in advance. The fact that the
search and seizure in question were made on a moving vehicle, appellant
argues, does not automatically make the warrantless search herein fall
within the coverage of the well-known exception to the rule of the necessity
of a valid warrant to effect a search because, as aforementioned, the antinarcotics agents had both time and opportunity to secure a search warrant.
In the instant case, it was firmly established from the factual findings of the
trial court that the authorities had reasonable ground to believe that
appellant would attempt to bring in contraband and transport it within the
country. The belief was based on intelligence reports gathered from
surveillance activities on the suspected syndicate, of which appellant was
touted to be a member. Aside from this, they were also certain as to the
expected date and time of arrival of the accused from China. But such
knowledge was clearly insufficient to enable them to fulfill the requirements
for the issuance of a search warrant. Still and all, the important thing is that
there was probable cause to conduct the warrantless search, which must still
be present in such a case.
Therefore, considering the foregoing, since the information included the acts
of delivery, dispatch or transport, proof beyond reasonable doubt of the
commission of any of the acts so included is sufficient for conviction under
Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
Moreover, the act of transporting a prohibited drug is a malum
prohibitum because it is punished as an offense under a special law. It is a
wrong because it is prohibited by law. Without the law punishing the act, it
cannot be considered a wrong. As such, the mere commission of said act is
what constitutes the offense punished and suffices to validly charge and
convict an individual caught committing the act so punished, regardless of
criminal intent. 7
As to the third assigned error, appellant contests the discharge of accused
Reynaldo Tia to testify for the prosecution on the ground that there was no
necessity for the same. Appellant argues that deep penetration agents such
as Tia "have to take risks and accept the consequences of their
actions." 8 The argument is devoid of merit. The discharge of accused Tia
was based on Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, which reads in part:
Sec. 9. Discharge of the accused to be state witness.
When two or more persons are jointly charged with the
commission of any offense, upon motion of the
prosecution before resting its case,the court may
direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with
their consent so that they may be witnesses for the
state . . . (emphasis supplied).
As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the discharge of an
accused is left to the sound discretion of the lower court. The trial court has
the exclusive responsibility to see that the conditions prescribed by the rule
exist. 9In the instant case, appellant does not allege that any of the
conditions for the discharge had not been met by the prosecution. Therefore,
the discharge, as ordered by the trial court, stands.
Finally, appellant alleges that the testimony of Sgt. Roberto Cayabyab
regarding the facts surrounding the commission of the offense proves that
the discharge of accused Tia is unnecessary. The allegation is baseless.
Private respondents then filed Civil Case No. 51144 against the petitioners
for sums of money and damages. 4 In its Decision dated January 9, 1987,
the trial court ruled for the private respondents, thus:
Costs of the case a quo and the instant appeal are assessed jointly and
severally against defendants-appellants (petitioners) MHP Garments, Inc.
and Larry de Guzman.
2. To pay plaintiff Agnes Villa Cruz the sum of P2,000.00 for the 26 pieces of
girl scout items not returned;
SO ORDERED.
3. To pay plaintiffs the amount of P50,000.00 for and as moral damages and
P15,000.00 for and as exemplary damages; and
SO ORDERED.
The decision was appealed to the respondent court. On January 18, 1989,
its Fifth Division, 5 affirmed the Decision with modification, thus:
While it would certainly be too naive to expect that violators of human rights
would easily be deterred by the prospect of facing damages suits, it should
nonetheless be made clear in no uncertain terms that Article 32 of the Civil
Code makes the persons who are directly, as well as indirectly, responsible
for the transgression joint tortfeasors.
xxx xxx xxx
[N]either can it be said that only those shown to have participated "directly"
should be held liable. Article 32 of the Civil Code encompasses within the
ambit of its provisions those directly, as well as indirectly, responsible for its
violations. (emphasis supplied)
Applying the aforecited provisions and leading cases, the respondent court
correctly granted damages to private respondents. Petitioners
were indirectly involved in transgressing the right of private respondents
against unreasonable search and seizure. Firstly, they instigated the raid
pursuant to their covenant in the Memorandum Agreement to undertake the
prosecution in court of all illegal sources of scouting supplies. 11 As correctly
observed by respondent court:
Indeed, the acts committed by the PC soldiers of unlawfully seizing
appellees' (respondents') merchandise and of filing the criminal complaint for
unfair competition against appellees (respondents) were for the protection
and benefit of appellant (petitioner) corporation. Such being the case, it is,
thus, reasonably fair to infer from those acts that it was upon appellant
(petitioner) corporation's instance that the PC soldiers conducted the raid
and effected the illegal seizure. These circumstances should answer the trial
court's query posed in its decision now under consideration as to why
the PC soldiers immediately turned over the seized merchandise to
appellant (petitioner) corporation. 12
The raid was conducted with the active participation of their employee. Larry
de Guzman did not lift a finger to stop the seizure of the boy and girl scouts
items. By standing by and apparently assenting thereto, he was liable to the
same extent as the officers themselves. 13 So with the petitioner corporation
which even received for safekeeping the goods unreasonably seized by the
PC raiding team and de Guzman, and refused to surrender them for quite a
time despite the dismissal of its complaint for unfair competition.
I felt very nervous. I was crying to loss (sic) my goods and capital because I
am doing business with borrowed money only, there was commotion created
by the raiding team and they even stepped on some of the pants and
dresses on display for sale. All passersby stopped to watch and stared at me
with accusing expressions. I was trembling and terribly ashamed, sir. 18
Respondent Lugatiman testified:
I felt very nervous. I was crying and I was very much ashamed because
many people have been watching the PC soldiers hauling my items, and
many/I (sic) heard say "nakaw pala ang mga iyan" for which I am claiming
P25,000.00 for damages. 19
While respondent Gonzalez stated thus:
I do not like the way the raid was conducted by the team sir because it
looked like that what I have been selling were stolen items that they should
be confiscated by uniformed soldiers. Many people were around and the
more the confiscation was made in a scandalous manner; every clothes, Tshirts, pants and dresses even those not wrapped dropped to the ground. I
was terribly shamed in the presence of market goers that morning. 20
Needles to state, the wantonness of the wrongful seizure justifies the award
of exemplary damages. 21 It will also serve as a stern reminder to all and
sundry that the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and
seizure is a virile reality and not a mere burst of rhetoric. The all
encompassing protection extends against intrusions directly done both by
government and indirectly by private entities.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION. We impose a SIX PERCENT (6%) interest from January 9,
1987 on the TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00) for the unreturned
twenty-six (26) pieces of girl scouts items and a TWELVE PERCENT (12%)
interest, in lieu of SIX PERCENT (6%), on the said amount upon finality of
this Decision until the payment thereof. 22 Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Padilla, Regalado, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.