[G.R. No. 115581.

August 29, 1997]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelle, vs. VACITA LATURA JONES, accused-

FACTS:

“The Narcotics Command (NARCOM) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) maintains a
team of its personnel which conducts routinary security checks on all outgoing passengers at
the final check, West Satellite, International Passenger Terminal, Departure Area, NAIA,
Pasay City. In the morning of December 11, 1991, the members of the NARCOM team then
assigned at the West Sattellite, Final Security Check, Departure Area, International Passenger
Terminal, NAIA (a police supervisor and civilian frisker.)

At around 6:30 o’clock in the morning of December 11, 1991, while Rubilinda Rosal was
conducting the routinary security check by frisking the bodies of all outgoing passengers at
the final check counter at the departure area, she happened to touch something unusual on
the breast of an outgoing lady passenger. The frisker, Rubilinda Rosal, brought the said lady
passenger to the side of the passengers’ passage where she was bodily searched. The search
yielded two (2) small packs (Exh. “C-2” and “C-3”) hidden inside her bra and another pack
(Exh “C-4”) hidden in the front part of her panty. Immediately upon discovering the packs,
Rubilinda Rosal informed SPO1 Bariuad of her findings. PO3 de Castro was requested to
examine the contents of the packs, De Catro conducted a field test which gave positive result
of heroin.

Rubilinda Rosal was further requested to search the personal belongings of the lady
passenger. The black leather jacket was found to contain two (2) more packs in its two
pockets. The NARCOM personnel immediately placed the lady passenger under arrest and
the corresponding Booking Sheet and Arrest Report was accomplished. The arrested lady
passenger identified herself as Miss VACITA LATURA JONES, 24 years old, American
national, a resident of 296 West Marposa, Altudin, California, U.S.A. and an outgoing
passenger of flight No. NW-066 bound for U.S.A. and a holder of passport Number 130478972.
She is the same person now accused in this case.

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NO ACCUSED-APPELANT IS LIABLE FOR UNLAWFUL
TRANSPORTATION THEREOF UNDER SECTION 4, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
6425, AS AMENDED, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE INDICATING THE POINT
OF ORIGIN OF SAID PACKS OF PROHIBITED DRUG AND THEY WERE NOT FOUND
TO BE IN TRANSIT OR BEING TRANSPORTED

HELD:
As to the accused’s third assignment of error, there is no doubt in mind of the court that the
accused was in the act of transporting heroin when she was caught. The accused was caught
in the international airport, holding tickets issued by Northwest Airlines for abroad. She had
gone through the usual process preceding departure, and was in fact in the last stage of
security checks, right before boarding, when frisker Rubilinda Rosal discovered her hidden
contraband. Such circumstances leave no doubt to the mind of the court the accused was
transporting the prohibited substance. There is no definitive moment when the accused
“transports” a prohibited drug. When the circumstances established point to the purpose of
the accused to transport, and to the fact of transportation itself, then there should be no
question as to the perpetration of the criminal act. As held by the court in Peoplevs.
Omaweng.[10]

“The fact that the appellant boarded the bus only at Natubley, Baguias, Benguet, and not from
Sagada to Baguio as indicated in the information given to the agents of the law is of no
moment. What is material is that the accused was transporting marijuana.”

In People vs. Lo Ho Wing,[11] the Court defined the term “transport”, as used under the
Dangerous drug act to mean “to carry or convey from one place to another,” [12] the operative
words being “to carry or to convey”. The fact that there is actual conveyance suffices to
support a finding that the act of transporting was committed. It is immaterial whether or not
the place of destination was reached.
As the Court observes,

“Moreover, the act of transporting a prohibited drug is a “malum prohibitum because it is

Though it was not raised on appeal, the matter of the penalty imposable on the accused
should be re-examined. Before the Dangerous Drugs Act was amended by R.A. 7659, the
imposable penalty for the illegal transportation of a prohibited drug under Section 14 Article
II of R.A. 6425 was life imprisonment to death. The accused in this case was meted the
penalty of life imprisonment by the trial court. With the enactment and effectivity of R.A.
7659, amending pertinent portions of the R.A. 6425, the penalty imposable upon violators of
Section 14 in now reclusion perpetua to death, and the capital punishment having been
reinstituted. Since reclusion perpatua is a lighter penalty than life imprisonment, and
considering the rule that criminal statutes with a favorable effect upon the accused have, as
to him, a retroactive effect, the penalty imposable upon the accused should be reclusion
perpetua and not life imprisonment.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court resolved the DENY the accused’s appeal.
CRIMPRO 113: Plain View Doctrine
Title GR No. 189272
People vs Chi Chan Liu Date: Jan. 21,2015
Ponente: Peralta, J.
People of the Philippines– Petitioners CHI CHAN
LIU a.k.a. CHAN QUE and HUI LAO
CHUNG a.k.a.
LEOFE SENGLAO– Respondents
Nature of the case: Appeal for decision rendered by by CA.
FACTS
Case timeline for better appreciation:
1. Dec. 3, 1998- SPO2 Lazaro
Paglicawan and SPO3 Isagani Yuzon received a radio message from Barangay Captain of
Ambil Island,Looc, Oriental Mindoro saying that there is a suspicious looking boat
somewhere w/in the vicinity of the island and they responded by heading towards the
location and spotted 2 boats anchored side by side, one of which resembled a fishing boat
and the other, a speedboat.
2. They noticed one (1) person onboard the fishing boat and two (2) onboard the speed
boat who were transferring cargo from the former to the latter. As they
moved closer to the area, the fishing boat hurriedly sped away but due to the strong waves
the officers were only able to reach the speedboat, w/c had some engine problems, and
found Respondents with 45 transparent plastic bags(weighing 1kilo each) containing a
white, crystalline substance which they later found out and tested to be
methamphetamine hydrochloride (Shabu). In the course of the arrest, the officers asked
the respondents for their identification papers but respondents failed to do so. The officers
directed respondents to transfer to their service boat and thereafter towed respondent’s
speed boat to the shore behind the Municipal Hall of Looc, Occidental, Mindoro.
Respondents repeatedly offered them “big, big amount of money” which they ignored.
3. Since the respondents do not know how to speak in English the officers had to get an
interpreter to tell them (respondents) of their Miranda rights.
-An information was filed against the respondents for violation of the Dangerous Drug
Act. The respondents plead not guilty.
4. Trial Court found respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt and the CA affirmed in
toto the decision of the Trial Court.
Petitioner/Respondents’ contention:
-They had witnesses which said that the bags of shabu was not recovered from the speed
boat but rather from the house of the Barangay captain.
-They allege a violation of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and
seizures. Due to the absence of probable cause, their warrantless arrest and consequent
search and seizure on their persons and possession is unjustified and hence, the
confiscated bags of regulated drugs therefrom are inadmissible against them.

ISSUE/S
I. Whether there was a violation of respondents’ constitutionjal right on
unreasonable search and if the warrantless arrest and search and seizure of their
 persons and possession was unjustified so as to make the confiscated bags
inadmissible as evidence against them? NO
RATIO
-In this case, appellants were actually committing a crime and were caught by the
apprehending officers in flagrante delicto. As previously stated, the records reveal that on
the date of their arrest, the apprehending officers, while acting upon a report from the
Barangay Captain, spotted appellants transferring cargo from one boat to another.
However, one of the boats hastily sped away when they drew closer to the appellants,
naturally arousing the suspicion of the officers. Soon after, the police officers found them
with the illegal drugs plainly exposed to the view of the officers. When they requested
appellants to show proper documentation as to their identity as well as their purpose for
being there, appellants refused to show them anything much less respond to any of their
questions. In fact, when the officers were transporting appellants and the illegal drugs to
the shore, the appellant Chi Chan Liu even repeatedly offered the arresting officers “big,
big amount of money.” Hence, the circumstances prior to and surrounding the arrest of
appellants clearly show that they were arrested when they were actually committing a
crime within the view of the arresting officers, who had reasonable ground to believe that
a crime was being committed.
-In addition, this Court does not find the consequent warrantless search and seizure
conducted on appellants unreasonable in view of the fact that the bags containing the
regulated drugs were in plain view of the arresting officers, one of the judicially recognized
exceptions to the requirement of obtaining a search warrant.

Summary:
-Arrest was valid because it was done in flagrante delicto which falls under Sec5 rule 113
-Search and seizure of plastic bags containing shabu was valid due to the plain view
doctrine.
RULING
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated
January 9, 2009 and Resolution dated April 24, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in
C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00657 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that appellants
herein are found GUILTY of the crime of illegal possession of regulated drugs.
Notes
Plain View Doctrine- objects falling in the plain view of an officer, who has a right to be
in the
position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.45 It
applies when the following requisites concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of
a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.
The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a
position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful
intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The
object must be open to eye and hand, and its discovery inadvertent.
Rule 113, Sec 5
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.·A peace officer of a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense.
This Court has ruled that for an arrest to fall under the above exception, two (2) elements
must be present: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating
that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;
and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
ONG
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015januarydecisions.php?id=62
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
vs. WILLIAM ROBERT BURTON, accused-appellant. 1997-02-19 | G.R. No. 114396
Facts:
Evening of December 26, 1992, accused William Burton y Robert, checked in at the
NAIA and was bound for Sydney, Australia. The accused had two pieces of luggage with him
which he passed through the x-ray machine at the departure area of the airport.

The machine showed certain portions of the sidings of one bag and the bottom of the
other to be dark in color, making its operator to suspect that something illegal was inside
them. With his consent, the sidings of one bag and the bottom of the other were slashed open.
Found inside were twelve (12) rectangular bricks and one (1) square brick of dark brown
materials. Their total weight was five and six-tenths (5.6) kilos.

During his investigation, the accused was observed to be walking in an uneasy manner.
Suspecting that there was something hidden in his shoes, the investigator requested Burton
to remove his shoes to which the accused consented. Retrieved from inside the shoes, hidden
were four (4) blocks of the same dark brown substance shaped according to the contour of
the soles of the shoes. When examined, it was found that is hashish or a derivative of
marijuana.

The trial court imposed the penalty of "life imprisonment" plus a fine of twenty
thousand pesos as the crime was committed on December 26, 1992. On December 31, 1993,
RA 7659, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, came into effect.

Issue: W/N the penalty imposed in RA 7659 should be applied.

Held:
No. This will result to an ex-post facto law. Retroactive application of said law would
not be advantageous to appellant in view of the INCREASED RANGE OF PENALTY AND
CONJUNCTIVE FINE prescribed, where the zuantity of prohibited drugs is "750 grams or
more". penalties. In the event that Republic Act No. 7659 is applied retrospectively to
appellant, he has to suffer not only reclusion perpetua but also the accessory penalties.

Moreover, the fine imposed upon appellant is the minimum imposable of twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00), whereas if he were penalized under the new law, he would have
to bear the minimum fine of P500,000.00. Thus, retrospective application of Republic Act No.
7659, the "heinous crimes law," in cases wherein the penalty of "life imprisonment" has been
imposed by the trial court, would prove more burdensome upon the appellant and would
contradict the basic principle that all penal laws shall be interpreted in favor of the accused.

If the new law would be applied, it will be a violation of the human right against
imposition of ex-post facto laws.
Topic: ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (WARRANTLESS SEARCHES-Valid Waiver)
Title: PEOPLE vs CORREA
Reference: GR 119246, 30 JANUARY 1998

FACTS
A week before 18 June 1994, Leonardo Dulay was placed under surveillance by the Police
Operatives from the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Western Police District Command (DEU-
WPDC) on account of confidential and intelligence reports received in said Unit about his
drug trafficking around Bambang Street, Tondo, Manila. The police surveillance brought
forth positive results and confirmed Dulay's illegal drug trade.
On 17 June 1994, operatives were alerted that Dulay would transport and deliver a certain
quantity of drugs that night on board a owner-type jeep (FMR948). Thereafter, the operatives,
together with the informer proceeded to A. Bonifacio Street on board 3 vehicles, and
inconspicuously parked along the side of North Cemetery and waited for the suspect.
The police informant spotted Dulay’s vehicle at 3:00 am. The operatives tailed the subject
jeepney until they reached Bambang extension and Jose Abad Santos Avenue, where they
accosted the passengers of said jeepney. The team inspected a cylindrical tin can of El Cielo
Vegetable Cooking Lard, about two feet high, loaded in the vehicle of the appellants. The can
contained 8 bundles of suspected dried marijuana flowering tops wrapped in pieces of paper
and plastic tapes. The team seized the suspected contrabands and marked each bundle
consecutively. The 3 suspects were brought to the police headquarters at DEU-WPDC for
investigation. The packages of suspected marijuana were submitted to the NBI for laboratory
analysis to determine their chemical composition. The tests confirmed that the confiscated
stuff were positive for marijuana and weighed 16.1789 kilograms.
The defense, however, contends that the 3 accused were arrested without warrant in Camarin
D, Caloocan City, enroute to Dulay’s house to get the things of his child allegedly rushed
previously to the Metropolitan Hospital, for an alleged charge of trafficking on 'shabu,' and
were brought to the WPDC headquarters at U.N. Avenue, where they were detained. On 12
July 1994, an Information was filed with the RTC Manila (Branch 35) indicting Antonio
Correa y Cayton @ "Boyet," Rito Gunida y Sesante @ "Dodong," and Leonardo Dulay y Santos
@ "Boy Kuba" for having violated Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, as amended. When
arraigned, the 3 accused pleaded not guilty. After trial and on 3 March 1995, the lower court
found the appellants guilty as charged and were sentenced to death and a fine of P10 million.

ISSUES
Whether or not the accused are precluded from assailing the warrantless search and seizure,
due to waiver on their part?

RULINGS
YES. Antonio Correa y Cayton @ "Boyet," Rito Gunida y Sesante @ "Dodong," and Leonardo
Dulay y Santos @ "Boy Kuba" are precluded from assailing the warrantless search and seizure
when they voluntarily submitted to it as shown by their actuation during the search and
seizure.
They never protested when the police officer opened the tin can loaded in their vehicle, nor
when he opened one of the bundles, nor when they, together with their cargo of drugs and
their vehicle, were brought to the police station for investigation and subsequent prosecution.
When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made on his person or
premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof The right to be secure from
unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either
expressly or impliedly."
Further, they effectively waived their constitutional right against the search and seizure by
their voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court, when they entered a plea of
not guilty upon arraignment and by participating in the trial.