Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People v. Tira, G.R. No. 139615, 28 May 2004
People v. Tira, G.R. No. 139615, 28 May 2004
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J : p
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,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
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
1. 9 pcs. suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride placed in
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets
5. disposable lighters
They also found cash money amounting to P12,536 inside a shoulder bag
placed on top of the television, in the following denominations:
1 pc. - P1,000.00 bill
4 pcs. - 500.00 bill
52 pcs. - 100.00 bill
36 pcs. - 50.00 bill
100 pcs. - 20.00 bill
53 pcs. - 10.00 bill
1 pc. - 5.00 bill
1 pc. - 1.00 coin 17
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.
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:
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
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.
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
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.
The appeals have no merit.
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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
PROS. DUMLAO
Q In the course of your search, what did you find?
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?
xxx xxx xxx
A I have here the list, Sir.
COURT:
Q Where did you find the money?
Q When you found shabu, lighter, marijuana, and money, what did
you do?
Q Who else?
A We also noticed the presence of Amadeo Tira, Sir.
Q What was he doing there?
A He was newly awake, Sir.
Q Upon entering the house, what did you do?
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?
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
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?
xxx xxx xxx
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.
Q When did they leave, Madam Witness?
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.
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 P1,000,000.00. 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 ofprision
correccional, in its medium period, as maximum. STHAaD
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
25. Id. at 1.
26. Id. at 36.
27. Id. at 219.
28. Id. at 82.
29. Appellant Amadeo Tira presented the following: Alfonso Gallardo, Mario
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
Conwi and Amadeo Tira.
37. Id. at 6.
38. Id.
39. Id. at 9.
40. Id. at 9–10.
41. TSN, 18 August 1998, pp. 5–6.