SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 86218. September 18, 1992.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELSIE BAGISTA y

BANGCO, Accused-Appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH

AND SEIZURE; RULE. — The general rule regarding searches and seizures can be stated
in this manner: no person shall be subjected to a search of his person, personal effects
or belongings, or his residence except by virtue of a search warrant or on the occasion
of a lawful arrest. The basis for the rule can be found in Article III, Section 2 of the
1987 Constitution. Art. III, Section 3 (2) further ordains that any evidence obtained in
violation of the aforementioned right shall, among others, "be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding." cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SEARCH OF A MOVING VEHICLE, AN EXCEPTION. — The

constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain
exceptions. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had
been upheld in cases of a moving vehicle, and the seizure of evidence in plain view.
With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this had been justified on the ground that
the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move
out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUISITE. — This in no way, however, gives the police
officers unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches of automobiles in the
absence of probable cause. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive
search, such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as long as the officers
conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search
that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle
to be searched.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; APPLICATION IN CASE AT BAR. — The NARCOM officers
in the case at bar had probable cause to stop and search all vehicles coming from the
north at Acop, Tublay, Benguet in view of the confidential information they received
from their regular informant that a woman having the same appearance as that of
accused-appellant would be bringing marijuana from up north. They likewise have
probable cause to search accused-appellant’s belongings since she fits the description
given by the NARCOM informant. Since there was a valid warrantless search by the
NARCOM agents, any evidence obtained during the course of said search is admissible
against Accused-Appellant.

5. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS; FINDINGS OF TRIAL JUDGE;

RULE AND EXCEPTION; CASE AT BAR. — The prosecution had shown, primarily through
the positive testimony of Sgt. Parajas, that the bag containing the dried marijuana
leaves was taken from accused-appellant’s possession. She denies this fact and
contends that the bag in question was actually taken from the luggage carrier above
the passenger seats and not from her. Indisputably, We have two opposing versions of
what actually happened at the checkpoint in Km. 16, Acop, Tublay, Benguet, resulting
in the accused-appellant’s apprehension, that of the prosecution and that of the
defense. In situations like this, the matter of assigning values to the testimony of
witnesses is best performed by the trial courts because, unlike appellate courts, they
can weigh such testimony in the light of the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the
witnesses at the trial. The exception is when the trial court has overlooked certain facts
of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result, which We do not find
in the instant case.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT AFFECTED BY MINOR DISCREPANCIES; CASE AT BAR. — As to the
alleged discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, such as the color of the stripes of the
bag which contained the marijuana and whether the items seized from accused-
appellant were marijuana leaves or marijuana fruit tops, these are minor in character
and do not detract from the prosecution’s case since it was shown by the Receipt of
Property Seized, which was signed by accused-appellant, that these were the very
items taken from her at the time of her arrest.

PADILLA, J., dissenting: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH

AND SEIZURE; RULE; SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLE AS AN EXCEPTION; REQUIRES
PROBABLE CAUSE; NOT PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. — In the case at bar, the NARCOM
agents searched the bag of the accused on the basis alone of an information they
received that a woman, 23 years of age with naturally curly hair, and 5’2" or 5’3" in
height would be transporting marijuana. The extensive search was indiscriminately
made on all the baggages of all passengers of the bus where the accused was riding,
whether male or female, and whether or not their physical appearance answered the
description of the suspect as described in the alleged information. If there really was
such an information, as claimed by the NARCOM agents, it is a perplexing thought why
they had to search the baggages of ALL passengers, not only the bags of those who
appeared to answer the description of the woman suspected of carrying marijuana.
Moreover, the accused was not at all acting suspiciously when the NARCOM agents
searched her bag, where they allegedly found the marijuana. From the circumstances of
the case at bar, it would seem that the NARCOM agents were only fishing for evidence
when they searched the baggages of all the passengers, including that of the accused.
They had no probable cause to reasonably believe that the accused was the woman
carrying marijuana alluded to in the information they allegedly received. Thus, the
warrantless search made on the personal effects of herein accused on the basis of mere
information, without more, is to my mind bereft of probable cause and therefore, null
and void. It follows that the marijuana seized in the course of such warrantless search
was inadmissible in evidence.

DECISION

NOCON, J.:
Appeal by accused-appellant Elsie Bagista from the decision dated September 26, 1988
of the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 10, finding her guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, and
sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P20,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

The facts of the case are as follows: On July 4, 1988, at around 8:00 o’clock in the
morning, the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) Detachment Office located at the Arix
Building, Bokawkan Road, Baguio City, received information from one of its regular
informants that a certain woman, 23 years of age, with naturally curly hair, and with a
height of 5’2" or 5’3", would be transporting marijuana from up north. 1 Acting upon
this piece of information, Sgt. Oscar Parajas testified that he, Sgt. Godofredo Fider and
a civilian NARCOM agent proceeded to Km. 16, Acop, Tublay, Benguet. Upon arriving at
said location at around 11:00 o’clock that same morning, they established a checkpoint
and flagged down all vehicles, both private and public, coming from the north to check
if any of these vehicles were carrying marijuana leaves on board. 2

After about 4 1/2 hours, the NARCOM agents stopped a Dangwa Tranco bus with Plate
No. AVD 938 and body number 428, which came from Lepanto, Benguet. Sgts. Parajas
and Fider boarded the bus and thereupon Sgt. Parajas announced to the passengers
that they were NARCOM agents and that they were going to search their baggages. Sgt.
Parajas then proceeded to the rear of the bus while Sgt. Fider began inspecting the
bags in the front. 3

While at the back, Sgt. Parajas noticed a woman with curly hair seated at the right side
(as one is facing the driver) of the last seat of the bus, with a travelling bag with black
and orange stripes 4 on her lap. Sgt. Parajas inspected the bag and discovered three
(3) bundles of marijuana leaves covered by assorted clothing. The bag and the contents
thereof were confiscated and the woman arrested; she was later brought to the
NARCOM office in Baguio City where she was booked and investigated. The woman was
then identified as Accused-Appellant. 5 The confiscated bundles were subjected to
laboratory examination, and found positive for marijuana. 6

Accused-appellant’s defense rests solely on denial. She claimed that she was engaged
in the buying and selling of vegetables, particularly cabbages. On the day in question,
she boarded the Dangwa Tranco bus at Abatan, Benguet, bringing with her ten (10)
sacks of cabbages which she intended to sell to a certain Maria Opino in Baguio City.
While inside the bus, she approached the conductor for her ticket to cover the fare for
her sacks of cabbages, but was told by the latter that he would attend to her later.

When the bus reached Tublay, Benguet, it was stopped by the NARCOM agents who
boarded the same and began inspecting the baggages of the passengers. Accused-
appellant claimed that the bag containing the marijuana was taken from the luggage
carrier above the passenger seats. When nobody admitted owning the bag, the
NARCOM agent approached her, took the shoulder bag on her lap, and asked her to
come with them for investigation as she fits the description of the would-be transporter
of the marijuana given by the NARCOM informer. She denied having anything to do
with the marijuana found on the bus. chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library
To corroborate her story, Accused-appellant presented the conductor of the Dangwa
Tranco bus, Nestor Yangkin. He testified that when the NARCOM agents boarded the
bus at Tublay, Benguet, one of them got a bag from the luggage carrier, opened it, and
smelled the contents. The agent then asked the passengers who among them owned
the bag; when nobody answered, he walked to the back of the bus, all the time looking
at the faces of the passengers. When the agent approached accused-appellant, who
was seated at the rear of the bus, the former talked to her, then escorted her out of the
bus. 7

During Yangkin’s cross-examination, it came out that the 10 sacks of vegetables that
were loaded at Abatan were brought by a man who told him that the fare for the sacks
will be paid upon arrival at the Dangwa Station in Baguio City but that the owner of the
sacks would be riding in the bus. And yet, Yangkin did not seek out the alleged owner
of the sacks. The witness also testified that none of the passengers approached him and
offered to pay for the fare of the sacks, 8 contrary to accused-appellant’s testimony.

In convicting accused-appellant, the trial court found the testimony of Sgt. Parajas
credible. Said the court a quo:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

". . . The testimony of Sgt. Oscar Parajas was direct and straightforward as he gave all
the requisite details of the entrapment operation they conducted based on an
information provided by a coordinating individual. His testimony reveals that the bag
containing the marijuana leaves was found on the lap of the accused. There is nothing
in the record to suggest that Sgt. Parajas was moved by any motive than simply the
carrying out of his official mission or duty. Where there is no evidence and nothing to
indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper
motives, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to
full faith and credit (People v. Francia, L-69253, September 30, 1987, 154 SCRA 495)."
9

The trial court brushed aside the defense’s observation that there were discrepancies
between the testimony of Sgt. Parajas and the evidence presented, such as the color of
the bag allegedly taken from accused-appellant and the kind of marijuana taken from
the bag, as immaterial. Similarly brushed aside was the defense’s contention that the
evidence against accused-appellant, such as the Receipt of Property Seized 10 and her
signature thereon, 11 and the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report 12 and her signature
thereon, 13 were inadmissible due to the absence of counsel, since these were not
confessions or extra-judicial statements.

Finally, the trial court did not give credence to the testimonies of accused-appellant and
her witness Nestor Yangkin, in view of the testimony of Sgt. Parajas that he took the
bag containing the marijuana from accused-appellant’s lap. Moreover, the court a quo
observed that there was a discrepancy between the testimonies of accused-appellant
and Yangkin on the matter of the 10 sacks of cabbage, which led the court to conclude
that the former was in the act of transporting marijuana at the time of her arrest.

Accused-appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that the marijuana leaves
found in the bag taken from her was inadmissible in evidence as it was the product of a
warrantless search, which motion was denied by the trial court for lack of merit on
November 22, 1988. chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Aggrieved, Accused-appellant filed the instant appeal, alleging that the court a quo
erred (1) in not finding the warrantless search conducted by the NARCOM agents as
illegal and unconstitutional, and (2) in admitting the illegally obtained evidences and
convicting her on the basis of said evidences.

Accused-appellant is in error.

The general rule regarding searches and seizures can be stated in this manner: no
person shall be subjected to a search of his person, personal effects or belongings, or
his residence except by virtue of a search warrant or on the occasion of a lawful arrest.
14 The basis for the rule can be found in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution,
which states: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose,
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." cralaw virtua1aw library

Article III, Section 3 (2) further ordains that any evidence obtained in violation of the
aforementioned right shall, among others, "be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding." cralaw virtua1aw library

The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of

certain exceptions. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search
had been upheld in cases of a moving vehicle, 15 and the seizure of evidence in plain
view. 16

With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this had been justified on the ground that
the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move
out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. 17

This in no way, however, gives the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct
warrantless searches of automobiles in the absence of probable cause. When a vehicle
is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless search has been
held to be valid only as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or
probable cause to believe before the search that they will find the instrumentality or
evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched. 18

The NARCOM officers in the case at bar had probable cause to stop and search all
vehicles coming from the north at Acop, Tublay, Benguet in view of the confidential
information they received from their regular informant that a woman having the same
appearance as that of accused-appellant would be bringing marijuana from up north.
They likewise have probable cause to search accused-appellant’s belongings since she
fits the description given by the NARCOM informant.

Since there was a valid warrantless search by the NARCOM agents, any evidence
obtained during the course of said search is admissible against Accused-Appellant. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

At any rate, no objection was raised by the accused-appellant in the court below on the
inadmissibility of the evidence against her on the ground that the same was obtained in
a warrantless search. This amounts to a waiver of the objection on the legality of the
search and the admissibility of the evidence obtained therefrom. 19 Amid a waiver, the
court is duty bound to admit the evidence. 20

Reviewing the evidence, We find the same sufficient to prove accused-appellant’s guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution had shown, primarily through the positive testimony of Sgt. Parajas,
that the bag containing the dried marijuana leaves was taken from accused-appellant’s
possession.

She denies this fact and contends that the bag in question was actually taken from the
luggage carrier above the passenger seats and not from her. Indisputably, We have two
opposing versions of what actually happened at the checkpoint in Km. 16, Acop, Tublay,
Benguet, resulting in the accused-appellant’s apprehension, that of the prosecution and
that of the defense. In situations like this, the matter of assigning values to the
testimony of witnesses is best performed by the trial courts because, unlike appellate
courts, they can weigh such testimony in the light of the demeanor, conduct and
attitude of the witnesses at the trial. 21 The exception is when the trial court has
overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the
result, 22 which We do not find in the instant case.

Moreover, Accused-appellant’s defense was weakened by the fact that her witness

Nestor Yangkin contradicted her on the matter of the 10 sacks of vegetables appellant
claims to have brought with her at the time of her arrest. Appellant claims she loaded
the sacks of vegetables on the bus and tried to pay for its fare, but that conductor
Yangkin, put her off. Yangkin claims otherwise: the sacks of vegetables were loaded by
a man who told him that the fare for the sacks will be paid upon arrival in Baguio City,
and that no one on the bus offered to pay for the same. cralawnad

In weighing contrary declarations and statements, greater weight must generally be

given to the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses than the denials of
the Accused-Appellant. 23

Given the discrepancy on this point, the trial court correctly disregarded the
corroborative testimony of Nestor Yangkin. The matter of the ownership of the 10 sacks
of vegetables is material since appellant’s reason for being on the bus was to deliver
these sacks to Baguio City. If the sacks of vegetables are not hers, then the only
conclusion that can be drawn is that she was on her way to Baguio City to sell the
marijuana found in her possession.

As to the alleged discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, such as the color of the
stripes of the bag which contained the marijuana and whether the items seized from
accused-appellant were marijuana leaves or marijuana fruit tops, these are minor in
character and do not detract from the prosecution’s case since it was shown by the
Receipt of Property Seized, 24 which was signed by accused-appellant, that these were
the very items taken from her at the time of her arrest.

WHEREFORE, finding no error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against Accused-Appellant.

SO ORDERED.