Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People v. Chi Chan Liu (Warrantless Arrest Seizure and Searches)
People v. Chi Chan Liu (Warrantless Arrest Seizure and Searches)
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
<PNP Station, Looc, Occidental Mindoro received a radio from a brgy. captain
that a suspicious looking boat was seen somewhere within the vicinity of said
island. Immediately thereafter, the police officers headed towards the
specified location wherein they spotted two (2) boats anchored side by side,
one of which resembled a fishing boat and the other, a speedboat. On board
the speed boat, the officers found the appellants Chi Chan Liu a.k.a. Chan
Que and Hui Lao Chung a.k.a. Leofe Senglao with several transparent plastic
bags containing a white, crystalline substance they instantly suspected to be
“shabu.”On their way, the police officers testified that appellant Chi Chan Liu
repeatedly offered them “big, big amount of money” which they ignored.>
Upon reaching the shore, the police officers led the appellants, together with
the bags containing the crystalline substance, to the police station. In the
presence of the appellants and Municipal Mayor Felesteo Telebrico, they
conducted an inventory of the plastic bags which were forty-five (45) in
number, weighing about a kilo each.7 Again, SPO3 Yuson requested proper
documentation from the appellants as to their identities as well as to the
purpose of their entry in the Philippine territory.8 However, the appellants did
not answer any of SPO3 Yuson’s questions.9 Immediately thereafter, SPO3
Yuson reported the incident to their superiors, PNP Provincial Command in
San Jose, Occidental Mindoro and PNP Regional Command IV in Camp
Vicente Lim, Calamba, Laguna. The PNP Regional Director General
Reynaldo Acop advised them to await his arrival the following
day.10chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges against them. Thereafter, trial on
the merits ensued, where the facts earlier stated were testified to by the
witnesses for the prosecution, specifically: SPO2 Paglicawan, SPO3 Yuson,
Police Inspector Culili, and Police Inspector Geronimo.
The testimonies of the witnesses for the defense, namely: Jesus Astorga and
Fernando Oliva, both residents of Ambil Island, Leopoldo S. J. Lozada, a
former Supervising Crime Photographer of the PNP, and Godofredo de la
Fuente Robles, a Member of the Looc Municipal Council, essentially maintain
that the subject crystalline substance was merely recovered by the
apprehending police officers from the house of Barangay Captain Maximo
Torreliza and not actually from the speed boat the appellants were
on.22chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The trial court found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt in its Decision
dated June 21, 2004, the dispositive portion of which
reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
SO ORDERED.23
<Accused was convicted in violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972
which aws affirmed by the CA >
I.
II.
III.
IV.
WHETHER OR NOT THE ARRAIGNMENT OF ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS IS VALID.cralawred
V.
ARTICLE III
Regulated Drugs
xxxx
ARTICLE IV
Provisions of Common Application to Offenses Penalized
under Articles II and III
xxxx
The CA, in finding that there was importation in the present case,
stated:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
We disagree. The mere fact that the appellants were Chinese nationals as
well as their penchant for making reference to China where they could obtain
money to bribe the apprehending officers does not necessarily mean that the
confiscated drugs necessarily came from China. The records only bear the
fact that the speed boat on which the appellants were apprehended was
docked on the coast of Ambil Island in the Municipality of Looc, Occidental
Mindoro. But it could have easily come from some other locality within the
country, and not necessarily from China or any foreign port, as held by the
CA. This Court notes that for a vessel which resembles a speed boat, it is
rather difficult to suppose how appellants made their way to the shores of
Occidental Mindoro from China. Moreover, an earlier intelligence report that
foreign nationals on board extraordinary types of vessels were seen along the
sealine of Lubang Island in Cavite, and Quezon Province, does not sufficiently
prove the allegation that appellants herein were, in fact, importing illegal drugs
in the country from an external source. This, notwithstanding, had the
prosecution presented more concrete evidence to convince this Court that the
prohibited drugs, indeed, came from a source outside of the Philippines, the
importation contention could have been sustained.
At the outset, appellants may argue that as We have ruled in United States v.
Jose,31 possession is not necessarily included in the charge of importation
and thus, they cannot be held liable thereof, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Counsel for neither of the parties to this action have discussed
the question whether, in case the charge of illegal importation
fails, the accused may still be convicted, under the information,
of the crime of illegal possession of opium. We, therefore, have
not had the aid of discussion of this proposition; but, believing
that it is a question which might fairly be raised in the event of
an acquittal on the charge of illegal importation, we have taken it
up and decided it. Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
provides that:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The court may find the defendant guilty of any
offense, or of any frustrated or attempted offense,
the commission of which is necessarily included in
the charge in the complaint or information.
As will be seen from this provision, to convict of an offense
included in the charge in the information it is not sufficient
that the crime may be included, but it must necessarily be
included. While, the case before us, the possession of the
opium by the appellants was proved beyond question and
they might have been convicted of that offense if they have
been charged therewith, nevertheless, such possession
was not an essential element of the crime of illegal
importation and was not necessarily included therein. The
importation was complete, to say the least, when the ship
carrying it anchored in Subic Bay. It was not necessary that the
opium be discharged or that it be taken from the ship. It was
sufficient that the opium was brought into the waters of the
Philippine Islands on a boat destined for a Philippine port and
which subsequently anchored in a port of the Philippine Islands
with intent to discharge its cargo. That being the case it is
clear that possession, either actual or constructive, is not a
necessary element of the crime of illegal importation nor is
it necessarily included therein. Therefore, in acquitting the
appellants of the charge of illegal importation, we cannot
legally convict them of the crime of illegal possession.32
However, in our more recent ruling in People v. Elkanish,33 this Court held that
possession is inherent in importation. In that case, the accused, who was
suspected of being the owner of sixty-five (65) large boxes of blasting caps
found aboard a ship of American registry docked inside Philippine territory,
was charged with illegal importation of the articles under Section 2702 of the
Revised Administrative Code and illegal possession of the same articles
under Section 1 of Act No. 3023, in two (2) separate informations. Ruling that
double jeopardy exists in view of the fact that possession is necessarily
included in importation, this Court affirmed the dismissal of the information on
illegal importation, in the following wise:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Applying the aforequoted ruling, this Court finds that while appellants cannot
be held liable for the offense of illegal importation charged in the information,
their criminal liability for illegal possession, if proven beyond reasonable
doubt, may nevertheless be sustained. As previously mentioned, the crime of
importation of regulated drugs is committed by importing or bringing any
regulated drug into the Philippines without being authorized by law. Indeed,
when one brings something or causes something to be brought into the
country, he necessarily has possession of the same. Necessarily, therefore,
importation can never be proven without first establishing possession,
affirming the fact that possession is a condition sine qua non for it would
rather be unjust to convict one of illegal importation of regulated drugs when
he is not proven to be in possession thereof.
At this point, this Court notes that charging appellants with illegal possession
when the information filed against them charges the crime of importation does
not violate their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation brought against them. The rule is that when there is a
variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and
that proved or established by the evidence, and the offense as charged
necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the
offense proved included in that which is charged.35 An offense charged
necessarily includes that which is proved, when some of the essential
elements or ingredients of the former, as this is alleged in the complaint or
information, constitute the latter.36chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The elements of illegal possession of regulated drugs are as follows: (a) the
accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a
regulated drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the regulated
drug.40chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The evidence on record clearly established that appellants were in possession
of the bags containing the regulated drugs without the requisite authority. As
mentioned previously, on the date of appellants’ arrest, the apprehending
officers were conducting a surveillance of the coast of Ambil Island in the
Municipality of Looc, Occidental Mindoro, upon being informed by the
Municipality’s Barangay Captain that a suspicious-looking boat was within the
vicinity. Not long after, they spotted two (2) boats anchored side by side, the
persons on which were transferring cargo from one to the other. Interestingly,
as they moved closer to the area, one of the boats hurriedly sped away. Upon
reaching the other boat, the police officers found the appellants with several
transparent plastic bags containing what appeared to be shabu which were
plainly exposed to the view of the officers. Clearly, appellants were found to
be in possession of the subject regulated drugs.
Moreover, this Court is not legally prepared to accept the version of the
appellants that they had nothing to do with the incident and that they were
being framed up as the drugs seized from them were merely planted by the
apprehending officers. At the outset, this Court observes that appellants did
not provide any explanation as to how the apprehending officers were actually
able to plant forty-five (45) bags of regulated drugs weighing about one (1)
kilo each in the speed boat of appellants in the middle of the ocean without
their knowledge. Also, as the trial court noted, they did not even give any
explanation as to the purpose of their presence in the coast of Ambil, Looc,
Occidental Mindoro. More importantly, aside from saying that the confiscated
bags of regulated drugs were merely implanted in their speed boat, they did
not provide the court with sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim. In the
words of the lower court:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
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.
Under the 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.46chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In the case at hand, the apprehending officers were performing their duty of
ascertaining whether a criminal activity was indeed happening at the time and
place reported by the Barangay Captain. In broad daylight, appellants were
seen in the act of transferring bags of illegal drugs from one boat to another
and thereafter caught in possession of the same, which became inadvertently
and immediately apparent from the point of view of the arresting officers. It is
undeniably clear, therefore, that the seizure of illegal drugs conducted by the
officers falls within the purview of the “plain view” doctrine. Consequently, the
confiscated drugs are admissible as evidence against appellants.
As to appellants’ assignment of failure on the part of the prosecution to
substantiate beyond reasonable doubt the corpus delicti of the crime charged
for the chain of custody of the illegal drugs was not sufficiently established,
the same cannot be sustained as a review of the records of the case provides
otherwise. From the time of appellants’ arrest, the seized bags of regulated
drugs were properly marked and photographed. Proper inventory was also
conducted in the presence of the appellants and Mayor Telebrico, who signed
a receipt evidencing that the confiscated drugs were turned over to the PNP
Regional Headquarters.47 There, the evidence was sent to the Regional
Crime Laboratory Service Office for an examination which yielded positive
results. The laboratory report, photographs, and receipts were all made part
of the records of this case. In fact, the bags containing the crystalline
substance were presented before the trial court during the hearing held on
October 12, 1999 which was identified by SPO3 Yuson, the officer who
confiscated the same. Evidently, an unbroken chain of custody of the
confiscated drugs was established by the prosecution.
Appellants also assail the legality of their detention for being formally charged
in an Information on December 8, 1998 or five (5) days after their arrest on
December 3, 1998, beyond the thirty-six (36)-hour period in Article 12548 of
the Revised Penal Code. But while the law subjects such public officers who
detain persons beyond the legal period to criminal liability, it must be
remembered that the proceeding taken against the detained persons for the
act they committed remains unaffected, for the two acts are distinct and
separate.49 This Court is nevertheless mindful of the difficult circumstances
faced by the police officers in this case, such as the language barrier, the
unresponsiveness of the appellants, the fact that one of the days fell on a
Sunday, as well as the disparity in the distances between the different
offices. But even assuming that the police officers intentionally delayed the
filing of the Information, appellants should have taken steps to report or file
charges against the officers. Unfortunately, they cannot now rely on
administrative shortcomings of police officers to get a judgment of acquittal for
these do not diminish the fact that illegal drugs were found in appellants’
possession.50chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Anent appellants’ claim that their constitutional rights were further violated for
during custodial investigation, they did not have counsel of their choice nor
were they provided with one, this deserves scant consideration since the
same is relevant and material only when an extrajudicial admission or
confession extracted from an accused becomes the basis of his
conviction.51 In this case, neither one of the appellants executed an admission
or confession. In fact, as the records clearly show, appellants barely even
spoke and merely kept repeating the phrase “call China, big money.” The trial
court convicted them not on the basis of anything they said during custodial
investigation but on other convincing evidence such as the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. Verily, there was no violation of appellants’
constitutional right to counsel during custodial investigation.
The facts borne by the records of the case, however, militate against the
contention of the appellants. This Court does not find a violation of appellants’
right to counsel for even in their own narration of facts, appellants stated that
when they appeared without counsel when the case was called for
arraignment on January 19, 1999, the trial court gave appellants time to
secure the services of counsel of their choice. It was only when appellants
again appeared without counsel on February 23, 1999 that the court
appointed a counsel from the Public Attorney’s Office.52 It is clear, therefore,
that appellants had ample opportunity to secure the services of a counsel of
their own choice. They cannot now assign error in the proceedings conducted
by the trial court for the fact remains that they were appointed with counsel in
full compliance with the law.
In much the same way, appellants had every opportunity to secure the
services of a Chinese interpreter with such competence at par with their
standards. As pointed out by the CA, the trial court gave appellants the
authorization to seek, through their counsel, the Chinese Embassy’s
assistance for purposes of procuring a Chinese interpreter.53 Appellants were
even given time, through several postponements, to properly secure the
services of one. If appellants were unsatisfied with the competence of the
court-appointed interpreter, it should have taken the opportunities given by the
trial court. In this relation, the trial court’s observations are worth mentioning,
to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Indeed, this Court accords the highest degree of respect to the findings of the
lower court as to appellants’ guilt of the offense charged against them,
especially when such findings are adequately supported by documentary as
well as testimonial evidence. It is a settled policy of this Court, founded on
reason and experience, to sustain the findings of fact of the trial court in
criminal cases, on the rational assumption that it is in a better position to
assess the evidence before it, having had the opportunity to make an honest
determination of the witnesses’ deportment during the
trial.55chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Moreover, in view of the well-entrenched rule that the findings of facts of the
trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive on this Court,
absent any evidence that both courts ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted
cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would
warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case, this Court finds
no cogent reason to deviate from the above findings.56 It is clear, therefore,
that based on the findings of the courts below, appellants were, in fact, in
possession of regulated drugs without the requisite authority.
xxxx
Section 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is
hereby amended to read as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and
Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the
Crime. - The penalties for offenses under Section
3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A,
15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if
the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the
following quantities:
xxxx
SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary
People v. Chi Chan Liu (Warrantless arrest seizure and searches)
Facts:
PNP Station, Looc, Occidental Mindoro received a radio from a brgy. captain
that a suspicious looking boat was seen somewhere within the vicinity of said
island. Immediately thereafter, the police officers headed towards the
specified location wherein they spotted two (2) boats anchored side by side,
one of which resembled a fishing boat and the other, a speedboat. On board
the speed boat, the officers found the appellants Chi Chan Liu a.k.a. Chan
Que and Hui Lao Chung a.k.a. Leofe Senglao with several transparent plastic
bags containing a white, crystalline substance they instantly suspected to be
“shabu.”On their way, the police officers testified that appellant Chi Chan Liu
repeatedly offered them “big, big amount of money” which they ignored.
Accused was convicted in violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 which
aws affirmed by the CA
Issue:
Held: Art. III, Sec. 2 of the constitution guaranty the freedom of person from
warrantless arrest and seizure however in cases provided in 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. Under the 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.
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. 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. Accused are convicted.