Professional Documents
Culture Documents
G.R. No. 88017: The People of The Philippines V Lo Ho Wing Alias Peter Lo, Lim Cheng Huat Alias Antonio Lim, and Reynaldo Tia Y Santiago
G.R. No. 88017: The People of The Philippines V Lo Ho Wing Alias Peter Lo, Lim Cheng Huat Alias Antonio Lim, and Reynaldo Tia Y Santiago
88017: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v LO HO The day after they arrived in Hongkong, Tia and appellant other taxicab carrying Lim sped away in an attempt to
WING alias PETER LO, LIM CHENG HUAT alias ANTONIO LIM, boarded a train bound for Guangzhou, in the People's escape. Three pieces of luggage were retrieved from the
and REYNALDO TIA y SANTIAGO Republic of China. Upon arriving there, they checked in at back compartment of the vehicle. The operatives
a hotel, and rested for a few hours. The pair thereafter requested from the suspects permission to search their
luggage. A tin can of tea was taken out of the red traveling
This case involves the unlawful transport of went to a local store where appellant purchased six tin
cans of tea. Tia saw the paper tea bags when the cans bag owned by appellant. Sgt. Roberto Cayabyab, pried
metamphetamine, a regulated drug under Republic Act
were opened for examination during the purchase. the lid open, pulled out a paper tea bag from the can and
No. 6425, as amended. One of its derivatives is
Afterwards, they returned to the hotel. Appellant kept the pressed it in the middle to feel its contents. Some
metamphetamine hydrochloride, notoriously known in
cans of tea in his hotel room. That evening, Tia went to crystalline white powder resembling crushed alum came
street parlance as "shabu" or "poor man's cocaine."
appellant's room to talk to him. Upon entering, he saw two out of the bag. The sergeant then opened the tea bag and
Appellant Peter Lo, together with co-accused Lim Cheng examined its contents more closely. Suspecting the
other men with appellant. One was fixing the tea bags,
Huat alias Antonio Lim and Reynaldo Tia, were charged crystalline powder to be a dangerous drug, he had the
while the other was burning substance on a piece of
with a violation of Section 15, Article III of the Dangerous three traveling bags opened for inspection. From the red
aluminum foil using a cigarette lighter. Appellant joined the
Drugs Act of 1972, before Branch 114 of the RTC of Pasay traveling bag, a total of six tin cans were found, including
second man and sniffed the smoke emitted by the burning
City. Only appellant and co-accused Lim Cheng Huat the one previously opened. Nothing else of consequence
substance. Tia asked the latter what they would be
were convicted. They were sentenced to suffer life was recovered from the other bags. Tia and appellant
bringing back to the Philippines. He was informed that
imprisonment, to pay a fine of P25,000.00 each, and to were taken to the CIS Headquarters in Quezon City for
their cargo consisted of Chinese drugs. Tia stayed in the
pay the costs. Their co-accused Reynaldo Tia was questioning. Meanwhile, the second taxicab was
room for about twenty minutes before going back to his
discharged as a state witness. eventually overtaken by two other operatives on Retiro
room to sleep.
In July 1987, the Special Operations Group, a unit of the
The next day, October 6,1987, the two returned to Manila Street, Quezon City. Lim was likewise apprehended and
Criminal Investigation Service of the Philippine brought to the CIS Headquarters for interrogation.
via a China Airlines flight. Appellant had with him his red
Constabulary, received a tip from one of its informers During the investigation of the case, the six tin cans
traveling bag with wheels. Before departing from
about an organized group engaged in the importation of recovered from the traveling bag of appellant were
Guangzhou however, customs examiners inspected their
illegal drugs, smuggling of contraband goods, and opened and discovered to contain a total of fifty-six paper
luggage. The tin cans of tea were brought out from the
gunrunning. After an evaluation of the information thus tea bags with white crystalline powder inside instead of
traveling bag of appellant. The contents of the cans were
received, a project codenamed "OPLAN SHARON 887" tea leaves.
not closely examined, and appellant was cleared along
was created in order to bust the suspected syndicate.
with Tia. The tea bag opened by Sgt. Cayabyab during the search
As part of the operations, the recruitment of confidential men and
"deep penetration agents' was carried out to infiltrate the crime The plane landed at the Ninoy Aquino International and seizure was sent to the PC-INP Crime Laboratory for
Airport, then named Manila International Airport, on preliminary examination. Tests conducted on a sample of
syndicate. One of those recruited was the discharged accused,
schedule. Lim met the newly-arrived pair at the arrival the crystalline powder inside the tea bag yielded a positive
Reynaldo Tia.
area. Lim talked to appellant, while Tia, upon being result that the specimen submitted was metamphetamine.
Tia was introduced to his co-accused Lim Cheng Huat by Samples from each of the fifty-six tea bags were similarly
instructed, looked after their luggage. After Lim and
another confidential agent named George. Lim expressed tested. The tests were also positive for metamphetamine.
appellant finished their conversation, the latter hailed a
a desire to hire a male travelling companion for his Hence, the three suspects were indicted.
taxicab. Appellant and Tia boarded the taxicab after
business trips abroad. Tia offered his services and was
putting their luggage inside the back compartment of the In rendering a judgment of conviction, the trial court gave
hired.
vehicle. Lim followed in another taxi cab. full credence to the testimonies of the government anti-
Lim and Tia met anew on several occasions to make
Meanwhile, a team composed of six operatives headed by narcotics operatives, to whom the said court applied the
arrangements for a trip to China. In the course of those well-settled presumption of regularity in the performance
Captain Palmera was formed to act on the tip given by Tia.
meetings, Tia was introduced to Peter Lo, whom Tia found of official duties.
On the expected date of arrival, the team proceeded to the
out to be the person he was to accompany to China in lieu Issues:
NAIA. Captain Palmera notified the Narcotics Command
of Lim. 1. W/N trial court erred in not declaring the search and seizure
Detachment at the airport for coordination. After a briefing,
As a "deep penetration agent," Tia regularly submitted the operatives were ordered to take strategic positions on the accused as illegal
reports of his undercover activities on the suspected around the arrival area. Two operatives stationed just 2. W/N trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of
criminal syndicate. Meanwhile, the officer-in-charge of outside the arrival area were the first ones to spot the delivering, dispatching or transporting metamphetamine
OPLAN SHARON 887, Captain Luisito Palmera, filed with suspects emerging therefrom. Word was passed on to the 3. W/N trial court erred in discharging Tia to testify for
his superiors the reports submitted to him, and officially other members of the team that the suspects were in sight. prosecution
informed the Dangerous Drugs Board of Tia's activities.
Upon seeing appellant and Tia leave the airport, the Ruling:
On October 4, 1987, appellant and Tia left for Hongkong operatives who first spotted them followed them. Along 1. Search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant
on board a Philippine Airlines flight. Before they departed, Imelda Avenue, the car of the operatives overtook the is not an absolute rule. There are at least three well-
Tia was able to telephone Captain Palmera to inform him taxicab ridden by appellant and Tia and cut into its path recognized exceptions thereto. As set forth in the case of
of their expected date of return to the Philippines. forcing the taxi driver to stop his vehicle. Meanwhile, the Manipon, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, these are:
[1] a search incidental to an arrest, commission of any of the acts so included is sufficient for
[2] a search of a moving vehicle, and conviction.
[3] seizure of evidence in plain view . It is malum prohibitum because it is punished as an
The circumstances of the case clearly show that the offense under a special law. As such, the mere
search in question was made as regards a moving vehicle. commission of said act is what constitutes the offense
Therefore, a valid warrant was not necessary to effect the punished and suffices to validly charge and convict an
search on appellant and his co-accused. individual caught committing the act so punished,
In this connection, We cite with approval the averment of regardless of criminal intent.
the Solicitor General, as contained in the appellee's brief, 3. Appellant contests the discharge of accused Reynaldo Tia to
that the rules governing search and seizure have over the testify for the prosecution on the ground that there was no
years been steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle necessity for the same. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor
is the object of the search on the basis of practicality. a General, the discharge of an accused is left to the sound
warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the discretion of the lower court. The trial court has the exclusive
ground that "it is not practicable to secure a warrant responsibility to see that the conditions prescribed by the rule
because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the exist.
locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Finally, appellant alleges that the testimony of Sgt. Roberto
In the instant case, it was firmly established from the Cayabyab regarding the facts surrounding the commission of
factual findings of the trial court that the authorities had the offense proves that the discharge of accused Tia is
reasonable ground to believe that appellant would attempt unnecessary. The allegation is baseless. Appellant himself
to bring in contraband and transport it within the country. admits that the sergeant's testimony corroborates the
The belief was based on intelligence reports gathered testimony of the discharged accused. The fact of corroboration
from surveillance activities on the suspected syndicate, of of the testimonies bolsters the validity of the questioned
which appellant was touted to be a member. Aside from discharge precisely because paragraph (a) of the aforequoted
this, they were also certain as to the expected date and rule on discharge requires that the testimony be substantially
time of arrival of the accused from China. There was corroborated in its material points. The corroborative testimony
probable cause to conduct the warrantless search, which of the PC-CIS operative does not debunk the claim of the
must still be present in such a case. prosecution that there is absolute necessity for the testimony
2. The information charged the accused of delivering, transporting of accused Tia.
or dispatching fifty-six (56) tea bags containing Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto and appeal
metamphetamine, a regulated drug. The conjunction "or' was is DISMISSED .
used, thereby implying that the accused were being charged
of the three specified acts in the alternative. Appellant argues
that he cannot be convicted of "delivery" because the term
connotes a source and a recipient, the latter being absent
under the facts of the case. It is also argued that "dispatching'
cannot apply either since appellant never sent off or disposed
of drugs. As for "transporting," appellant contends that he
cannot also be held liable therefor because the act of
transporting necessarily requires a point of destination, which
again is non- existent under the given facts.
There is no doubt that law enforcers caught appellant and
his co-accused in flagrante delicto of transporting a
prohibited drug. The term "transport" is defined as "to
carry or convey from one place to another."
The situation in the instant case is one where the transport
of a prohibited drug was interrupted by the search and
arrest of the accused. Interruption necessarily infers that
an act had already been commenced. Otherwise, there
would be nothing to interrupt.
Therefore, considering the foregoing, since the
information included the acts of delivery, dispatch or
transport, proof beyond reasonable doubt of the