Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People v. Tira, G.R. No.139615, May 28,2004
People v. Tira, G.R. No.139615, May 28,2004
EN BANC
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
This is an appeal of the Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, Branch 46, finding
appellants Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 16, in
relation to Section 20, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659, sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and ordering each of them to pay a fine of ₱1,000.000. 2
The Indictment
The appellants Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira were charged in an Information which reads:
That on or about March 9, 1998, in the Municipality of Urdaneta, province of Pangasinan and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession, control and custody the following:
In the evening of February 24, 1998, SPO3 Asidelio Manibog received a verbal instruction from the
Chief of Police Superintendent Wilson R. Victorio to conduct surveillance operations on the house of
Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira at Perez Extension Street because of reported rampant drug activities
in the said area. Manibog formed a team composed of SPO1 Renato Cresencia, PO3 Reynaldo
Javonilla, Jr. and PO3 Efren Abad de Vera to conduct the ordered surveillance.
At around 8:00 p.m., the group, clad in civilian clothes, arrived at Perez Extension Street. As they
stationed themselves in the periphery of a store, they observed that more than twenty persons had
gone in and out of the Tira residence. They confronted one of them, and asked what was going on
inside the house. The person revealed that Amadeo Tira sold shabu, and that he was a regular
customer. The group went closer to the house and started planning their next move. They wanted to
pose as buyers, but hesitated, for fear of being identified as PNP members. Instead, they stayed
there up to 12:00 midnight and continued observing the place. Convinced that illegal activities were
going on in the house, the policemen returned to the station and reported to P/Supt. Wilson R.
Victorio. After hearing their report, P/Supt. Victorio instructed his men to make an affidavit of
surveillance preliminary to an application for a search warrant. 5
On March 6, 1998, SPO3 Asidelio Manibog, PO3 Efren Abad de Vera, SPO1 Renato Cresencia and
PO2 Reynaldo Soliven Javonilla, Jr. executed an Affidavit of Surveillance, alleging, inter alia, that
they were members of the Drug Enforcement Unit of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, and that in the evening
of February 24, 1998, they confirmed reports of illegal drug-related activities in the house of the
spouses Amadeo and Connie Tira.6 On March 6, 19987 Police Chief Inspector Danilo Bumatay Datu
filed an Application for a Search Warrant in the Municipal Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan,
attaching thereto the affidavit of surveillance executed by his men and a sketch of the place to be
searched.8
Satisfied with the testimonies of SPO3 Manibog, PO3 de Vera, SPO1 Cresencia and PO2 Javonilla,
Jr., Judge Aurora A. Gayapa issued a search warrant commanding the applicants to make an
immediate search of the Tira residence at anytime of the day or night, particularly the first room on
the right side, and the two rooms located at Perez south, and forthwith seize and take possession of
the following items:
3. Weighing scale.9
P/Sr. Inspector Ludivico Bravo, and as head of the team, with SPO3 Cariaga, PO3 Concepcion,
Cariño, Galima, Villaroya, Andaya, SPO1 Mario Tajon, SPO1 Asterio Dismaya, SPO1 Renato
Cresencia, and PO3 Reynaldo Javonillo were directed to implement the search warrant. 10 They
responded and brought Barangay Kagawad Mario Conwi to witness the search. 11 At 2:35 p.m. on
March 9, 1998, the team proceeded to the Tira residence. The men found Ernesto Tira, the father of
Amadeo, at the porch of the house. They introduced themselves and told Ernesto that they had a
warrant authorizing them to search the premises. Ernesto led them inside. The policemen found the
newly awakened Amadeo inside the first room 12 of the house.13 With Barangay Kagawad Conwi and
Amadeo Tira, the policemen proceeded to search the first room to the right (an inner room) and
found the following under the bed where Amadeo slept: 14
5. disposable lighters
They also found cash money amounting to ₱12,536 inside a shoulder bag placed on top of the
television, in the following denominations:
1 pc. -₱1,000.00 bill
The policemen listed the foregoing items they found in the house. Amadeo’s picture was taken while
he was signing the said certification. 18 Ernesto (Amadeo’s father), also witnessed the certification.
A joint affidavit of arrest was, thereafter, executed by SPO3 Asidelio Manibog, SPO1 Mario C. Tajon,
SPO1 Asterio T. Dismaya, SPO1 Renato M. Cresencia and PO3 Reynaldo S. Javonilla, Jr. for the
apprehension of Amadeo Tira and Nelson Tira who were brought to the police station for custodial
investigation. The articles seized were turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Urdaneta Sub-
Office, for examination.19 In turn, a laboratory examination request was made to the Chief of the
Philippine National Police Service-1, Sub-Office, Urdaneta, Pangasinan for the following:
On March 10, 1998, P/Supt. Wilson R. Victorio executed a Compliance/Return of Search Warrant. 21
On March 17, 1998, the PNP Crime Laboratory Group in Physical Science Report No. DT-057-98
reported that the test conducted by Police Superintendent/Chemist Theresa Ann Bugayong-
Cid,22 yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and marijuana. The report
contained the following findings:
"A1 to A3, "B1 to B6," "E" – POSITIVE to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a
regulated drug.
"C" and "D1 to D4" – POSITIVE to the test for marijuana, a prohibited drug.
CONCLUSION:
A criminal complaint was filed by P/Supt. Wilson R. Victorio against Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira on
March 10, 1998 for violation of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended. 24 After finding probable cause,
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Rufino A. Moreno filed an Information against the Tira Spouses for
illegal possession of shabu and marijuana, in violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of Rep.
Act No. 6425.25 A warrant of arrest was issued against Connie Tira on May 13, 1998. However, when
the policemen tried to serve the said warrant, she could not be found in the given address. 26 She was
arrested only on October 6, 1998. 27
During the trial, the court conducted an ocular inspection of the Tira residence. 28
The Case for Accused Amadeo Tira29
Amadeo Tira denied the charge. He testified that he was a furniture delivery boy 30 who owned a one-
storey bungalow house with two bedrooms and one master’s bedroom. There was also another
room which was divided into an outer and inner room; the latter room had no windows or ventilation.
The house stood twenty meters away from Perez Extension Street in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, and
could be reached only by foot. 31 He leased the room located at the western portion to his nephew
Chris Tira32 and the latter’s live-in-partner Gemma Lim for four hundred pesos a month. 33 Chris and
Gemma were engaged in the buying and selling of bananas. He denied that there were young men
coming in and out of his house.34
In the afternoon of March 6, 1998, he was in his house sleeping when the policemen barged into his
house. He heard a commotion and went out of the room to see what it was all about, and saw police
officers Cresencia, Javonilla and Bergonia, searching the room of his nephew, Chris Tira. He told
them to stop searching so that he could contact his father, Ernesto, who in turn, would call the
barangay captain. The policemen continued with their search. He was then pulled inside the room
and the policemen showed him the items they allegedly found. 35
Barangay Kagawad Mario Conwi testified that on March 9, 1998, while he was at Calle Perez,
Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Capt. Ludivico Bravo asked to be accompanied to the Tira residence. Capt.
Bravo was with at least ten other policemen. As they parked the car at Calle Perez, the policemen
saw a man running towards the direction of the ricefields. Kagawad Conwi and some of the
policemen chased the man, who turned out to be Nelson Tira. One of the policemen pointed to a
sachet of shabu which fell to the ground near Nelson. The policemen arrested him and proceeded to
the house of Amadeo Tira to serve the warrant.36 When they reached the house, the other policemen
were waiting. He saw Amadeo and Connie Tira sitting by the door of the house in the sala.
Thereafter, he and the policemen started the search. 37 They searched the first room located at the
right side (if facing south),38 and found marijuana, shabu, money and some paraphernalia. 39 An
inventory of the items seized was made afterwards, which was signed by Capt. Bravo and Ernesto
Tira.40
Alfonso Gallardo, Amadeo’s neighbor, testified that he was the one who constructed the Tira
residence and that the house initially had two rooms. The first room was rented out, while the
second room was occupied by the Spouses Amadeo and Connie Tira. 41 Subsequently, a divider was
placed inside the first room.42 He also testified that his house was only three (3) meters away from
that of the Tiras, and that only a toilet separated their houses. 43 He denied that there were many
people going in and out of the Tira residence.44
The trial court rendered judgment on September 24, 1998, finding Amadeo Tira guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal possession of 807.3 grams of marijuana and 1.001 gram of shabu. The
decretal portion of its decision is herein quoted:
The amount of P12,536.00 is hereby forfeited in favor of the government which forms part of the fine;
the marijuana weighing 807.3 grams and shabu weighing 1.001 gram are hereby forfeited in favor of
the government; the disposable lighter and the aluminum foil are likewise forfeited in favor of the
government.
The Branch Clerk of Court of this Court is hereby ordered to prepare the mittimus.
The Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) is hereby ordered to transmit the
person of Amadeo Tira to the National Bilibid Prison with proper escort within fifteen (15) days upon
receipt of this Order.45
The trial court upheld the validity of Search Warrant No. 3 issued by Judge Aurora Gayapa. It found
Amadeo’s defense, that the room where the items were seized was rented out to the couple Cris
Tira and Gemma Lim, unsubstantiated. It held that Amadeo, as owner of the house, had control over
the room as well as the things found therein and that the inner room was a secret and practical place
to keep marijuana, shabu and related paraphernalia. 46
After her arrest, Connie filed a motion to quash search warrant, 48 alleging that the police officers who
applied for the said warrant did not have any personal knowledge of the reported illegal activities.
She contended that the same was issued in violation of Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, as
the judge issued the search warrant without conducting searching questions and answers, and
without attaching the records of the proceedings. Moreover, the search warrant issued was in the
nature of a general warrant, to justify the "fishing expedition" conducted on the premises.
On October 26, 1998, the presiding judge ordered Judge Aurora A. Gayapa to forward the
stenographic notes of the applicant and the witnesses.49 Connie was arraigned on November 9,
1998, pending the resolution of the motion. She pleaded not guilty to the charge of illegal possession
of shabu and marijuana.50 The trial court thereafter issued an Order on November 11, 1998, denying
the motion to quash.51 It did not give credence to the allegations of Connie Tira, and found that
Judge Gayapa issued the search warrant after conducting searching questions, and in consideration
of the affidavit of witness Enrique Milad.
Connie testified that she was engaged in the business of buying and selling of fruits, while her
husband was employed at the Glasshouse Trading. One of the rooms in their house was occupied
by their three boarders, two male persons and one female.
In the afternoon of March 9, 1998, she and her husband Amadeo were in their house, while their
boarders were in their respective rooms. At 2:30 p.m., she was in the kitchen taking care of her one-
year-old child. She had other three children, aged eight, four, and three, respectively, who were
watching television. Her husband Amadeo was sleeping in one of the rooms. Suddenly, five
policemen barged into their house and searched all the rooms. The policemen found and seized
articles in the room occupied by one of their boarders. They arrested Amadeo, and her brother-in-
law, Nelson Tira, and brought them to the police station. The boarders, however, were not arrested.
Joy Fernandez, a neighbor of the Tiras, lived approximately ten meters away from the latter. Since
they had no television, she frequently went to her neighbor’s house to watch certain programs. In the
afternoon of March 9, 1998, she was at the Tira residence watching "Mirasol," while Connie was in
the kitchen nursing her baby. Suddenly, about five or ten persons ran inside the house and
handcuffed Amadeo Tira.52
The trial court found Connie Tira guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of 807.3
grams of marijuana and 1.001 gram of shabu. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
The amount of ₱12,536.00 is hereby forfeited in favor of the government which forms part of the fine;
the marijuana weighing 807.3 grams and shabu weighing 1.001 gram are hereby forfeited in favor of
the government; the disposable lighter and the aluminum foil are, likewise, forfeited in favor of the
government.
The Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) is hereby ordered to transmit the
person of Connie Tira to the National Bilibid Prisons with proper escort within fifteen (15) days upon
receipt of his Order.53
The trial court did not believe that Connie Tira had no knowledge, control and possession of the
shabu and marijuana found in the first or inner room of their house. It stressed that Connie and
Amadeo Tira jointly controlled and possessed the shabu and marijuana that the policemen found
therein. It ratiocinated that it was unusual for a wife not to know the existence of prohibited drugs in
the conjugal abode. Thus, as husband and wife, the accused conspired and confederated with each
other in keeping custody of the said prohibited articles. 54 The court also held that Connie Tira’s flight
from their house after the search was an indication of her guilt. Connie, likewise, appealed the
decision.55
In their brief, the appellants Amadeo and Connie Tira assigned the following errors committed by the
trial court:
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE SEARCH WAS ILLEGALLY MADE.
III
The Court shall resolve the assigned errors simultaneously as they are interrelated.
The appellants contend that the search conducted by the policemen in the room occupied by Chris
and Gemma Lim, where the articles and substances were found by the policemen, was made in their
absence. Thus, the search was made in violation of Section 7, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, which provides:
SEC. 7. Search of house, room, or premise, to be made in presence of two witnesses. – No search
of house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant
thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two witnesses
of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
The appellants posit that the articles and substances found by the policemen in their house are
inadmissible in evidence, being the fruits of a poisonous tree. Hence, they contend, they should
have been acquitted of the crime charged. The appellants further assert that the prosecution failed to
prove that they owned the prohibited drugs, and that the same were in their possession and control
when found by the policemen. They insist that it cannot be presumed that they were in control and
possession of the said substances/articles simply because they owned the house where the same
were found, considering that the room was occupied by Chris Tira and his live-in partner, Gemma
Lim.
The appellant Connie Tira avers that she never fled from their house after the policemen had
conducted the search. Neither was she arrested by the policemen when they arrested her husband.
Contrary to the appellants’ claim, appellant Amadeo Tira was present when the policemen searched
the inner room of the house. The articles and substances were found under the bed on which the
appellant Amadeo Tira slept. The policemen did not find the said articles and substances in any
other room in the house:
Q So when you reached the house of Amadeo Tira at the Tira’s compound, you saw the
father and you told him you are implementing the Search Warrant and your group was
allowed to enter and you are allowed to search in the presence of Amadeo Tira?
A Yes, Sir.
PROS. DUMLAO
WITNESS:
Q What else?
A Lighter, Sir.
COURT:
Q If that shabu will be shown to you, could you identify the same?
WITNESS:
A Yes, Sir.
Q About the marijuana leaves, if shown to you could you identify the same?
A Yes, Sir.
PROS. DUMLAO:
Q What else did you find out aside from the marijuana leaves, shabu and lighter?
6 disposable lighters
A Yes, Sir.
Q When you found shabu, lighter, marijuana, and money, what did you do?
A My signature, Sir.57
PROS. TOMBOC:
Q And when you were allowed to enter the house, did you notice who was present?
Q When you said Connie Tira, is she the same Connie Tira the accused in this case?
Q Who else?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Can you mention to the Honorable Court those items that you searched in the house of
Connie Tira and Amadeo Tira?
A As per in (sic) our records, we found three (3) sachets containing suspected
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride "Shabu" residue; one (1) brick of suspected dried
marijuana leaves weighing more or less 750 grams; twenty-four (24) tea bags containing
dried marijuana leaves; six (6) disposable lighter; one (1) roll aluminum foil; several empty
plastics (tea bag); several used and unused aluminum foil; and cash money amounting to
₱12,536.00 in different denominations believe[d] to be proceeds of the contraband, Sir.
Q You said you recovered one (1) brick of marijuana leaves, showing to you a (sic) one (1)
brick suspected to be marijuana leaves, is this the one you are referring to?
Appellant Amadeo Tira was not the only witness to the search; Kagawad Mario Conwi and Ernesto
Tira, Amadeo’s father, were also present. Ernesto Tira even led the policemen inside the house.
This is evidenced not only by the testimony of Kagawad Conwi, but also by the certification signed
by the appellant himself, along with Kagawad Conwi and Ernesto Tira. 59
The trial court rejected the testimony of appellant Amadeo Tira that the inner room searched by the
policemen was occupied by Chris Tira and his girlfriend Gemma Lim with the following
encompassing disquisition:
… The defense contention that a couple from Baguio City first occupied the first room, the Court is
not persuaded because they did not present said businessmen from Baguio City who were engaged
in vegetable business. Secondly, the same room was rented by Chris Tira and Gemma Lim. Chris
Tira and Gemma Lim, engaged in banana business, were not presented in Court. If it were true that
Chris Tira and Gemma Lim were the supposed lessees of the room, they should have been
apprehended by the searching party on March 9, 1998, at about 2:30 p.m. There was no proof
showing that Chris Tira and Gemma Lim ever occupied the room, like personal belongings of Chris
Tira and Gemma Lim. The defense did not even show proof showing that Chris Tira reside in the first
room, like clothings, toothbrush, soap, shoes and other accessories which make them the residents
or occupants of the room. There were no kitchen plates, spoons, powder, or soap evidencing that
the said room was occupied by Chris Tira and Gemma Lim. Amadeo Tira contended that Chris Tira
and Gemma Lim are engaged in banana business. There are no banana stored in the room at the
time of the search and both of them were out of the room at the time of the search. And why did not
Amadeo Tira supply the police officers of the personal identities and address where they could find
Chris Tira and Gemma Lim at the time of the search. If they were banana dealers, they must be
selling their banana in the market and they could have pointed them in the market. 60 …
We are in full accord with the trial court. It bears stressing that the trial court conducted an ocular
inspection of the house of the appellants, and thus, had first hand knowledge of the layout of the
house. Besides, the testimony of the appellant Amadeo Tira, that the inner room was occupied by
Chris Tira and Gemma Lim who were not there when the search was conducted, is belied by the
testimony of the appellant Connie Tira that the room was occupied by two male and one female
boarders who were in the room when the policemen searched it. Thus:
Q You said that while taking care of your baby, several policemen barged [sic] your house?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And they proceeded to your room where your husband was sleeping at that time?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And it is in that room where your husband was sleeping and where those articles were
taken?
A No, Sir.
A No more, Sir.
A No, Sir.61
We agree with the finding of the trial court that the only occupants of the house when the policemen
conducted their search were the appellants and their young children, and that the appellants had no
boarders therein.
Before the accused may be convicted of violating Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended
by Rep. Act No. 7659, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential
elements of the crime, viz: (1) the actual 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 or
consciously possessed the said drug.62
The essential elements of the crime of possession of regulated drugs are the following: (a) the
accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not authorized by law or by
duly constituted authorities; and, (c) the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated
drug. This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element.
However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi)
the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive
possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or
control of the accused.63 On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under
the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control
over the place where it is found.64 Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. 65 The accused
cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the
contraband is located, is shared with another. 66
Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a showing of non-exclusive
possession would not exonerate the accused.67 Such fact of possession may be proved by direct or
circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution
must prove that the accused had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drug in the place
under his control and dominion and the character of the drug. 68 Since knowledge by the accused of
the existence and character of the drugs in the place where he exercises dominion and control is an
internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drug is in the house or
place over which the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence of
any satisfactory explanation.69
In this case, the prohibited and regulated drugs were found under the bed in the inner room of the
house of the appellants where they also resided. The appellants had actual and exclusive
possession and control and dominion over the house, including the room where the drugs were
found by the policemen. The appellant Connie Tira cannot escape criminal liability for the crime
charged simply and merely on her barefaced testimony that she was a plain housewife, had no
involvement in the criminal actuations of her husband, and had no knowledge of the existence of the
drugs in the inner room of the house. She had full access to the room, including the space under the
bed. She failed to adduce any credible evidence that she was prohibited by her husband, the
appellant Amadeo Tira, from entering the room, cleaning it, or even sleeping on the bed. We agree
with the findings and disquisition of the trial court, viz:
The Court is not persuaded that Connie Tira has no knowledge, control and possession of the shabu
and marijuana (Exhibits "M," "N," "O" and "P") found in their room. Connie Tira and Amadeo Tira
jointly control and possess the shabu (Exhibits "M" and "N") and marijuana (Exhibits "O" and "P")
found in the room of their house. It is unusual for a wife not to know the existence in their conjugal
abode, the questioned shabu and marijuana. The husband and wife (Amadeo and Connie)
conspired and confederated with each other the keeping and custody of said prohibited articles. Both
of them are deemed in possession of said articles in violation of R.A. 6425, Section 8, in relation to
Section 20.
The trial court convicted the appellants of violating Section 16, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act
No. 6425, as amended. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserts that the appellants should
be convicted of violating Section 8 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended. We do not agree with the trial
court and the OSG. We find and so hold that the appellants are guilty of two separate crimes: (a)
possession of regulated drugs under Section 16, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
amended, for their possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug; and, (b)
violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of the law, for their possession of marijuana, a
prohibited drug. Although only one Information was filed against the appellants, nevertheless, they
could be tried and convicted for the crimes alleged therein and proved by the prosecution. In this
case, the appellants were charged for violation of possession of marijuana and shabu in one
Information which reads:
That on or about March 9, 1998, in the Municipality of Urdaneta, province of Pangasinan, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession, control and custody the following:
- Twenty-four (24) tea bags of dried marijuana leaves weighing 86.3 grams
The Information is defective because it charges two crimes. The appellants should have filed a
motion to quash the Information under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court before
their arraignment. They failed to do so. Hence, under Rule 120, Section 3 of the said rule, the
appellants may be convicted of the crimes charged. The said Rule provides:
SEC. 3. Judgment for two or more offenses. - When two or more offenses are charged in a single
complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict him of
as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each offense,
setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each offense.
The crime of violation of Section 8, Article II of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for illegal
possession of 807.3 grams of marijuana, a prohibited drug, is punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death. Considering that there are no qualifying circumstances, the appellants are sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, conformably to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code and are
ordered to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00.
Under Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, the imposable penalty of possession
of a regulated drug, less than 200 grams, in this case, shabu, is prision correccional to reclusion
perpetua. Based on the quantity of the regulated drug subject of the offense, the imposable penalty
shall be as follows:
Considering that the regulated drug found in the possession of the appellants is only 1.001 grams,
the imposable penalty for the crime is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the appellants are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from four (4) months and
one (1) day of arresto mayor in its medium period as minimum, to three (3) years of prision
correccional in its medium period as maximum, for violation of Section 16 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
amended.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, appellants Amadeo and Connie Tira are found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 8, Article II of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, and are
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ORDERED to pay a fine of
₱1,000,000.00. The said appellants are, likewise, found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, and are sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of from Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of arresto mayor in its medium
period as minimum, to Three (3) years of prision correccional, in its medium period, as maximum.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
1
Penned by Honorable Judge Modesto C. Juanson.
2
Rollo, pp. 17, 66.
3
Records, p. 1.
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Celestino B. Corpuz, SPO3 Asedilio
4
Manibog, SPO1 Asterio Dismaya, Police Inspector Panfilo M. Regis and Police
Superintendent Theresa Ann B. Cid.
5
TSN, 15 June 1998, pp. 6-9.
6
Exhibit "A-3", Records, p. 41
7
Exhibit "A-2;" Id., at 44.
8
Id. at 42.
9
Exhibit "A," Records, p. 43.
10
TSN, 15 June 1998, p. 11.
11
Ibid.
12
TSN, 16 June 1998, p. 6.
13
TSN, 6 January 1999, p.6.
14
TSN, 15 June 1998, p. 13.
15
Exhibit "D," Records, p. 47.
16
Exhibit "A-6," Records, p. 49.
17
TSN, 16 June 1998, p. 4; Exhibit "J."
18
Exhibits "L" and "L-1."
19
Exhibit "E," TSN, 15 June 1998, p. 18.
20
Exhibit "B," Records, p. 45.
21
Exhibit "A-7," Records, p. 50.
22
Exhibit "C-1," Records, p. 46.
23
Exhibit "C," Id. at 46.
24
Records, p. 7.
25
Id. at 1.
26
Id. at 36.
27
Id. at 219.
28
Id. at 82.
Appellant Amadeo Tira presented the following: Alfonso Gallardo, Mario Conwi and
29
Amadeo Tira.
30
TSN, 5 August 1998, p. 2.
31
Id. at 6.
32
TSN, 10 August 1998, p. 4.
33
TSN, 5 August 1998, p. 5.
34
Id. at 11.
35
Id. at 8-10.
36
TSN, 11 August 1998, pp. 3-5.
37
Id. at 6.
38
Id.
39
Id. at 9.
40
Id. at 9-10.
41
TSN, 18 August 1998, pp. 5-6.
42
Id. at 12.
43
Id. at 3-4.
44
Id. at 7.
45
Records, p. 107.
46
Id. at 104-106.
47
Id., at 122
48
Id., at 116-121.
49
Id., at 128.
50
Id., at 142.
51
Id., at 150.
52
TSN, 23 March 1999, pp. 3-7.
53
Records, p. 228.
54
Id., at supra.
55
Records, p. 229.
56
Rollo, p. 95.
57
TSN, 15 June 1998, pp. 13-14.
58
TSN, 11 January 1999, pp. 11-12.
59
Exhibit "8."
60
Rollo, p. 47.
61
TSN, 5 April 1999, pp. 10-11.
62
People v. De Guzman, 315 SCRA 573 (2001).
63
People v. Ramos, 186 SCRA 184 (1990).
64
People v. Rice, 131 Cal. Rptr. 330 (1976); People v. Francis, 450 P.2d. 591 ( ).
65
People v. Estrada, 234 44 Cal. Rptr. 165 (1965).
66
People v. Francis, supra; People v. Jackson, 302 12 Cal. Rptr. 748; People v. Rice, supra.
67
People v. Tolliver, 125 Cal. Rptr. 905 (1976).
68
Peope v. Rice, supra.
69
People v. Baluda, 318 SCRA 503 (1999).
70
Rollo, pp. 126-127.