G.R. No.

185719 June 17, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

vs.
MARCELINO COLLADO Y CUNANAN, MYRA COLLADO Y SENICA, MARK CIPRIANO Y
ROCERO, SAMUEL SHERWIN LATARIO Y ENRIQUE,* AND REYNALDO RANADA Y
ALAS**, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Mere allegations and self-serving statements will not overcome the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties accorded to police officers. There must be a showing of clear and
convincing evidence to successfully rebut this presumption.

On appeal is the February 28, 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
02626 which affirmed with modification the December 7, 2005 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 154 in Criminal Case Nos. 13781-D, 13783-D and 13784-D. The RTC
convicted the appellants and several other accused for violations of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 or
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and imposed upon them the penalty of
imprisonment and payment of fine in each of their respective cases.

Factual Antecedents

On October 14, 2004, appellants Marcelino Collado (Marcelino) and Myra Collado (Myra) were
charged with the crimes of sale of dangerous drugs and maintenance of a den, dive or resort in
violation of Sections 5 and 6 of Article II, RA 9165 docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 13781-D and
13782-D, respectively, viz:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13781-D

On or about October 9, 2004, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one
another, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell, deliver and give away to PO2 Richard N. Noble, a police poseur buyer, one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing three (3) centigrams (0.03 gram) of white crystalline substance,
which was found positive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in
violation of the said law.

Contrary to law.3

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13782-D

On or about or immediately prior to October 9, 2004, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually
helping and aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maintain a
den, dive or resort located at No. 32 R. Hernandez St., Brgy. San Joaquin, Pasig City, where x x x
dangerous drugs are used or sold in any form, in violation of the said law.

Contrary to law.4
Marcelino was also charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II
of the same law docketed as Criminal Case No. 13783-D, viz:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13783-D

On or about October 9, 2004, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing six centigrams (0.06 gram) of white crystalline
substance, which was found to be positive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.

Contrary to law.5

On the other hand, appellants Mark Cipriano (Cipriano), Samuel Sherwin Latario (Latario), Reynaldo
Ranada (Ranada), together with co-accused Melody Apelo (Apelo), Marwin Abache (Abache),
Michael Angelo Sumulong (Sumulong), and Jay Madarang (Madarang), were charged with
possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Section 14, Article II of RA 9165, docketed as
Criminal Case No. 13784-D, viz:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13784-D

On or about October 9, 2004, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused, each being in the proximate company of two (2) persons and in conspiracy with one
another, without having been duly authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in their possession and under their custody and control the following paraphernalias
[sic], fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering or introducing any dangerous drug into
the body, to wit:

a. one (1) strip aluminum foil containing traces of white crystalline substance marked as Exh-
D;

b. one (1) improvised glass tooter containing traces of white crystalline substance marked as
Exh-D1;

c. one (1) pack transparent plastic sachet marked as Exh-D2;

d. two (2) plastic disposable lighters marked as Exhs. "G-H";

e. one (1) tape-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing three (3) rolled aluminum foil
marked as Exh. D5;

f. five (5) unsealed transparent plastic sachets marked as Exh. D6;

g. one (1) stainless scissor marked as Exh. D7;

h. one (1) rectangular glass marked as Exh. D8; and

i. one (1) roll of aluminum foil marked as Exh. D9.

[Specimens] marked as Exh-D and Exh-D1 were found positive to the test for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.

Contrary to law.6

Upon arraignment on November 4, 2004, all the appellants and the other accused pleaded not
guilty.7 Pre-trial and joint trial on the merits subsequently ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented as witnesses PO2 Richard Noble (PO2 Noble) and SPO2 Bernardo Cruz
(SPO2 Cruz) who were involved in the buy-bust operation that led to the arrest of the appellants.
Their testimonies are summarized as follows:

On October 9, 2004, PO2 Noble received information from a civilian asset that spouses Marcelino
and Myra were engaged in selling shabu and that drug users, including out-of-school youth, were
using their residence in 32 R. Hernandez St., San Joaquin, Pasig City, for their drug sessions.8 After
recording the report in the police blotter, PO2 Noble relayed the information to his superior, P/Insp.
Earl B. Castillo (P/Insp. Castillo), who in turn ordered the conduct of a surveillance operation.9 PO2
Noble, SPO2 Cruz and PO1 Anthony Bitbit, conducted a surveillance on the couple’s residence.
After confirming the reported activities, SPO2 Cruz looked for an asset who could introduce them to
Marcelino and Myra in the ensuing buy-bust operation.10

A buy-bust operation team was thereafter formed. After coordinating with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency as evidenced by a Pre-Operation Report,11 the team proceeded to Marcelino’s
and Myra’s residence on board two private vehicles. Upon reaching the target area, the asset
introduced PO2 Noble to Marcelino as a regular buyer of shabu.12 When asked how much shabu he
needed, PO2 Noble replied, "dalawang piso," which meansP200.00 worth of drugs. But when PO2
Noble was handing over the marked money to Marcelino, the latter motioned that the same be given
to his wife, Myra, who accepted the money. Marcelino then took from his pocket a small metal
container from which he brought out a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
and gave the same to PO2 Noble. While PO2 Noble was inspecting its contents, he noticed smoke
coming from a table inside the house of the couple around which were seven persons.13 When PO2
Noble gave the pre-arranged signal, the backup team rushed to the scene. Simultaneously, PO2
Noble introduced himself as a policeman and arrested Marcelino. He frisked him and was able to
confiscate the metal container that contained another sachet of white crystalline substance. PO2
Noble wrote the markings "MCC-RNN October 9, 2004" on both the plastic sachets of white
substance sold to him by Marcelino and the one found inside the metal container.

Meanwhile, SPO2 Cruz and another police officer went inside the house of Marcelino and Myra,
where they found Apelo, Cipriano, Ranada, Abache, Sumulong, Madarang and Latario gathered
around a table littered with various drug paraphernalia such as an improvised water pipe, strips of
aluminum foil with traces of white substance, disposable lighters, and plastic sachets. A strip of
aluminum foil used for smoking marijuana was recovered from Ranada. The buy-bust team arrested
all these persons, advised them of their constitutional rights, and brought them to police
headquarters for investigation and drug testing.

A chemistry report14 on all the seized items yielded positive results for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride. Another chemistry report15 showed Marcelino, Apelo, Cipriano, and Ranada positive
for drug use while Myra, Abache, Sumulong, Madarang, and Latario were found negative.

Version of the Defense

The defense presented the testimonies of Marcelino, Myra, and Ranada, who all essentially put up
the defense of denial. The following is their version of the story.

Marcelino and Myra owned an electronics and appliance repair shop annexed to their house. In the
evening of October 9, 2004, Marcelino was in the living room with his children and nieces fixing a
VCD player. Apelo, their househelp, was in the kitchen preparing food while Ranada, their
repairman, was outside the house fixing Sumulong’s motorcycle. Cipriano and Madarang were also
present at the shop, the former to redeem his car stereo and the latter to borrow a play station CD.
Latario, a housemate of Marcelino and Myra, was also present at the time.

Marcelino suddenly heard someone say "Walang tatakbo!" Four armed men rushed inside the house
and pointed their guns at him and said "Wag ka nang pumalag." He was thereafter dragged outside
where he saw the other accused already in handcuffs. Marcelino was later informed that they were
being arrested for selling shabu. Marcelino protested and disclaimed any knowledge about drugs.
When the officers frisked all the accused, Marcelino claimed that nothing illegal nor incriminating
was recovered from them.

When Myra arrived at the scene, she was shocked to see her husband being arrested. The police
officers then brought all the accused to the police station for further questioning.

At the police station, PO2 Noble asked Marcelino for P50,000.00 as settlement of their case.
Marcelino, Apelo, Cipriano, and Ranada were also made to drink water that according to Marcelino
tasted bitter.16 They were then brought to Camp Crame for medical examination and drug tests.
Those who drank the bitter water tested positive for drugs use while the others, who did not drink,
tested negative.

Marcelino surmised that their arrest was due to a misunderstanding he had with a former police
officer named Rey who bought a VCD player from his shop. He specifically instructed Rey not to let
anyone repair the VCD player should it malfunction. However, when the VCD player malfunctioned,
Rey had it repaired by somebody else, hence Marcelino refused to accept the VCD player and return
Rey’s money. This earned the ire of Rey who threatened him with the words "Humanda ka pagbalik
ko."17

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In its Decision18 dated December 7, 2005, the RTC disposed of the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

In Crim. Case No. 13781-D, finding the accused MARCELINO COLLADO y Cunanan and MYRA
COLLADO y Senica GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5 of R.A.
9165 (sale of dangerous drug) and they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT.

Additionally, the two accused are ordered to pay a fine of ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00)
EACH.

In Crim. Case No. 13782-D, judgment is rendered finding the accused MARCELINO COLLADO y
Cunanan and MYRA COLLADO y Senica NOT GUILTY of the crime of violation of Section 6.
In Crim. Case No. 13783-D, finding the accused MARCELINO COLLADO y Cunanan GUILTY of the
offense of violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to FIFTEEN (15)
YEARS.

The accused Marcelino Collado is also ordered to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (P300,000.00).

In Crim. Case No. 13784-D, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused MELODY APELO y
Roman, MARK CIPRIANO y Rocero, MARWIN ABACHE y Aquilino, MICHAEL ANGELO
SUMULONG y Belarmino, JAY MADARANG y Gomez, SAMUEL SHERWIN LATARIO y Enrique
and REYNALDO RANADA y Alas GUILTY of the offense of violation of Section 14 of R.A. 9165 and
they are hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS, EIGHT (8)
MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to FOUR (4) YEARS imprisonment. Each of them is also ordered to pay
a fine of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00).

Let the shabu and paraphernalia alleged to be the subject[s] of the Information be turned over and
delivered immediately to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.19

Accused Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and Madarang applied for probation.20 Hence, only Marcelino,
Myra, Cirpriano, Latario and Ranada appealed to the CA.21

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The appellate court found the warrantless arrest of the appellants to be lawful considering that they
were caught in the act of committing a crime.22 Thus, the CA affirmed the conviction of Marcelino and
Myra for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs), as well as the conviction of
Marcelino for violation of Section 11 of RA 9165 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs). Anent the
violation of Section 14 of RA 9165 (possession of drug paraphernalia), the CA affirmed the
conviction of Ranada as he was caught having custody and control of a drug paraphernalia intended
for smoking and injecting illegal drugs into one’s body.23 As regards Cipriano and Latario, as well as
the other accused Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and Madarang, the CA found them guilty not as
principals but only as accessories.

Thus, the appellate court affirmed with modification the trial court’s Decision through a
Decision24 dated February 28, 2008, the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED with respect to the conviction and imposition of
the respective penalties against the following: (A) appellants Marcelino Collado and Myra Collado in
Crim. Case No. 13781-D25for violation of Section 5, Article II, RA No. 9165; (B) appellant Marcelino
Collado in Crim. Case No. 13783-D for violation of Section 11, Article II, RA No. 9165; (C) appellant
Reynaldo Ranada in Crim. Case No. 13784-D for violation of Section 14, Article II, RA No. 9165.

In Crim. Case No. 13784-D, MODIFICATION is hereby ordered as to appellants Mark Cipriano and
Samuel Sherwin Latario, including co-accused Melody Apelo, Marwin Abache, Michael Angelo
Sumulong and Jay Madarang – insofar as they were found GUILTY, not as principals, but as
ACCESSORIES in the offense of violation of Section 14, Article II of RA No. 9165, in relation to the
aforecited provision of the Revised Penal Code. Each of them shall suffer the straight penalty of
Four (4) Months of arresto mayor. The fine of Ten Thousand Pesos already imposed by the trial
court upon each of them is MAINTAINED.
SO ORDERED.26

Not satisfied, the appellants are now before this Court arguing that irregularities attended their arrest
and detention as well as the procedure in handling the specimen allegedly seized from them.
Because of these, they assert that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Our Ruling

The appealed Decision should be affirmed, with modification.

The presumption of regularity in the

performance of official duties must
be upheld in the absence of clear and
convincing evidence to overturn the
same.

Appellants question the validity of the buy-bust operation and point out the following irregularities
which they claim attended its conduct: (1) lack of warrant of arrest; (2) non-compliance with the
procedures laid down under Section 21 of RA 9165; and, (3) the alleged extortion of money from
them by PO2 Noble in exchange for dropping the charges against them. Due to these irregularities,
appellants argue that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties accorded to
police officers does not apply in this case.

Lack of a warrant of arrest

Appellants argue that the arrest, search, and seizure conducted by the police were illegal since it
was not supported by a valid warrant. They thus posit that their right to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated.27

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides for lawful warrantless arrests, viz:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. -- A peace officer or 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;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

Section 5(a) is what is known as arrest in flagrante delicto. For this type of warrantless arrest to be
valid, two requisites must concur: "(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."28 A common example of
an arrest in flagrante delicto is one made after conducting a buy-bust operation.
This is precisely what happened in the present case. The arrest of the appellants was an arrest in
flagrante delicto made in pursuance of Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The arrest was
effected after Marcelino and Myra performed the overt act of selling to PO2 Noble the sachet of
shabu and Ranada of having in his control and custody illegal drug paraphernalia. Thus, there is no
other logical conclusion than that the arrest made by the police officers was a valid warrantless
arrest since the same was made while the appellants were actually committing the said crimes.

Moreover, assuming that irregularities indeed attended the arrest of appellants, they can no longer
question the validity thereof as there is no showing that they objected to the same before their
arraignment. Neither did they take steps to quash the Informations on such ground.29 They only
raised this issue upon their appeal to the appellate court. By this omission, any objections on the
legality of their arrest are deemed to have been waived by them.30

Anent their claim of unreasonable search and seizure, it is true that under the Constitution, "a search
and consequent seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes
unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding."31 This proscription, however, admits of exceptions, one of which is a warrantless search
incidental to a lawful arrest.32

The arrest of the appellants was lawful. Under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, "[a]
person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been
used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant." The factual
milieu of this case clearly shows that the search was made after appellants were lawfully arrested.
Pursuant to the above-mentioned rule, the subsequent search and seizure made by the police
officers were likewise valid. Hence, appellants’ claim of unreasonable search and seizure must fail. 1âwphi1

Extortion

Appellants aver that PO2 Noble tried to extort money from them in exchange for dropping the drug
charges against them.

The defense of extortion and/or frame-up is often put up in drugs cases in order to cast doubt on the
credibility of police officers. This is a serious imputation of a crime hence clear and convincing
evidence must be presented to support the same. There must also be a showing that the police
officers were inspired by improper motive. In this case, we find such imputation unfounded.

In People v. Capalad,33 this Court held thus:

Charges of extortion and frame-up are frequently made in this jurisdiction. Courts are, thus, cautious
in dealing with such accusations, which are quite difficult to prove in light of the presumption of
regularity in the performance of the police officers’ duties. To substantiate such defense, which can
be easily concocted, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the members
of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their
duty. Otherwise, the police officers’ testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.

Here, aside from Marcelino’s self-serving testimony, appellants’ claim of extortion is not
substantiated by other convincing evidence. Neither was it established during trial that PO2 Noble or
the other members of the buy-bust team were impelled by improper motive. Appellants’ allegation
that PO2 Noble and his team arrested them because of Marcelino’s previous misunderstanding with
a certain retired policeman named Rey deserves no credence. No evidence was presented to show
any connection between Rey and the buy-bust team. It was not even shown by the defense who this
person Rey really is. Also, it is highly unlikely that a team of police officers would pursue a
surveillance, conduct a buy-bust operation, and arrest all the accused for a measly P1,000.00 VCD
player. In view of these, appellants’ allegation of extortion and improper motive deserves no
credence.

Chain of Custody

Appellants argue that the procedure laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165 was not followed. They
specifically harp on the fact that the confiscated drugs were not photographed and inventoried.
Moreover, they contend that the police officers who handled the seized specimen were not
presented in court to testify on the condition in which they received the said specimen. For the
appellants, these defects constitute a clear break in the chain of custody and, consequently, the
prosecution failed to establish corpus delicti.34

The Court, however, finds this argument unmeritorious.

Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165 provides for the custody and disposition of the
confiscated drugs, to wit:

(1) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof;

This rule is elaborated in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA
9165, viz:

a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/ team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizure; Provided,
further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
(Emphasis supplied)

Pursuant to the above-cited provisions, this Court has consistently ruled that the failure of the police
officers to inventory and photograph the confiscated items are not fatal to the prosecution’s
cause,35 provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized substance were preserved, as
in this case. Here, PO2 Noble, after apprehending Marcelino and confiscating from him the sachets
of shabu, immediately placed his markings on them. He testified thus:

PROSECUTOR PAZ:

Q: What did you do with that sachet containing white substance that was bought from Marcelino and
the one that you were able to confiscate from him?
A: I put my markings.

Q: What were those markings?

A: MCC-RNN October 9, 2004.36

In the Request for Laboratory Examination37 the seized items were listed and inventoried. After the
conduct of the laboratory examination, Chemistry Report No. D-807-0438 revealed that the contents
of the said sachets tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Moreover, it is of no moment that Forensic Chemist Alejandro De Guzman who conducted the
laboratory examination was not presented as a witness. The non-presentation as witnesses of other
persons who had custody of the illegal drugs is not a crucial point against the prosecution.39 There is
no requirement for the prosecution to present as witness in a drugs case every person who had
something to do with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the prohibited drugs from him.40 To
stress, the implementing rules are clear that non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved
by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items.41

Criminal Case No. 13784-D

With regard to Criminal Case No. 13784-D for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, we find it
imperative to re-examine the findings of both the RTC and the CA.

The RTC’s findings are as follows:

The evidence for the prosecution clearly shows that certain things or paraphernalia which are fit or
intended [for] smoking shabu were found in the house of the accused Marcelino and Myra Collado
on the same occasion that the said spouses were arrested by the police officers. This fact makes all
the accused without exception liable for violation of Section 14. While it was only Reynaldo Ranada
who was caught having in his possession an item used in smoking marijuana, i.e., a strip of
aluminum foil x x x and nothing was found in the possession of the other accused, this fact
nonetheless does not render Reynaldo Ranada the only person liable for violation of Section 14.
[Take note] that the law speaks not only of possession but also of having under one’s control the
paraphernalia intended for smoking. In the instant case, the paraphernalia were found by the police
on top of the table around which the accused were gathered. Hence, even if the x x x accused other
than Ranada did not have in their possession any of the paraphernalia, it can, however, be said that
the paraphernalia found on top of the table were under their control. x x x42

Thus, the RTC found Ranada, Cipriano, Latario, Apelo Abache, Sumulong and Madarang all equally
guilty of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.

On appeal, however, the CA found Ranada guilty as principal while Cipriano, Latario, Apelo,
Abache, Sumulong and Madarang were adjudged as accessories only for the crime of illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia. The CA ratiocinated thus:

On the one hand, we sustain the conviction of Rañada in Crim. Case 13784-D. He was actually
caught having custody and control of the confiscated drug paraphenalia intended for smoking,
injecting, etc. into one’s body. It was also indubitably shown that he failed to present authority to
possess the prohibited articles, much less, an explanation of his possession thereof. However, as
regards the other accused who were seen in the company of Rañada, the evidence of conspiracy
against them was insufficient.

To hold an accused guilty as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have

performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. Responsibility of a conspirator
is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral
acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended.

It may be that appellants Mark Cipriano and Samuel Sherwin Latario and co-accused Melody Apelo,
Marwin Abache, Michael Angelo Sumulong, Jay Madarang were in close proximity [to] Rañada at
the time and place of the incident. But mere presence at the scene of the crime does not imply
conspiracy. The prosecution failed to show specific overt acts that would link these accused to
Ranada’s possession of the said contrabands. As to why they were there [in] the vicinity of the crime
scene was not explained. They could be mere innocent onlookers although they were aware of the
illegality of the principal’s acts.

In any event, appellants Cipriano and Latario and the rest of the accused cannot be totally
exonerated. [However, we] downgrade their culpability corresponding to their criminal design and
1âwphi1

participation. Evidently, they are guilty as accessories who, according to paragraph 1, Article 19 of
the Revised Penal Code, are criminally liable by ‘profiting themselves or assisting the offender to
profit by the effects of the crime’.43

We find that the CA erred in convicting Cipriano, Latario, Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and Madarang
as accessories. As pointed out by Justice Arturo D. Brion:

"[I]llegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous
drugs during parties, social gatherings or meetings under Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a crime of
malum prohibitum, that is, the act is made wrong or evil because there is a law prohibiting it. x x x

Since violation of Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a crime of mala prohibita, the degree of
participation of the offenders is not considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized
to the same extent. There is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider. In short, the
degree of participation of the offenders does not affect their liability, and the penalty on all of them
are the same whether they are principals or merely accomplices or accessories.44

In addition, Section 98 of RA 9165 specifically provides that "[n]otwithstanding any law, rule or
regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as amended,
shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. Where the
offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein
shall be reclusion perpetua to death." It is therefore clear that the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code, particularly Article 19 on Accessories, cannot be applied in determining the degree of
participation and criminal liability of Ranada’s co-accused.

At any rate, this Court is convinced that only Ranada should be held liable for violation of Section 14
of RA 9165. It is clear that it was only Ranada who was caught having in his possession an
aluminum foil intended for using dangerous drugs.45 As to the other co-accused, namely Apelo,
Abache, Cipriano, Latario, Madarang, and Sumulong, not one drug paraphernalia was found in their
possession. The police officers were only able to find the other drug paraphernalia scattered on top
of a table. It is already established that there was no conspiracy between Ranada and the other co-
accused. As the CA correctly held, mere presence at the scene of the crime does not imply
conspiracy.46
PO2 Noble, when placed on the witness stand, only testified as follows:

A-

While I was checking the item that I bought, I saw several persons inside their house.

Q-

What were these persons doing?

A-

Some were seated, some were standing and there was x x x smoke.

Q-

Where was this smoke coming from?

A-

I did not see where the smoke [was] coming from because some of the persons were blocking [my
view].

Q-

About how many persons were inside who were seated and who were standing?

A-

Seven (7).

Q-

Will you tell us if they are male or female or both?

A-

Six (6) male persons and one (1) female.

Q-

What are these persons who were seated inside the house doing?

A-

They were allegedly engaged in drug session.

COURT:
Q-

What do you mean allegedly?

A-

Because there was smoke and I did not see what they were using.

PROSECUTOR PAZ:

Q-

What about those who were standing, what were they doing?

A-

The persons who were standing were looking at the persons who were sitting. I could not see them
clearly because some of them were blocking my view.

Q-

How far were they, those who were seated and those who were standing?

A-

They were close to each other.

Q-

How long did you take a look at these persons inside the house?

A-

Only for a while, only for a glance, sir.47

On the other hand, SPO2 Bernardo Cruz testified that it was only Ranada who was caught holding
the aluminum foil, viz:

Q-

How about the aluminum foil that you recovered from another?

A-

I saw him holding the strip of aluminum foil, sir.

Q-

So, nothing was confiscated in the person of all other accused except for Ranada?
A-

Yes, sir.48

Therefore, Apelo, Abache, Cipriano, Latario, Madarang, and Sumulong should be acquitted of the
charge of violation of Section 14, RA 9165 on possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and
other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs.

All told, this Court upholds the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the
police officers involved in this case. The defense was not able to show by clear and convincing
evidence why the presumption should be overturned. The prosecution, on the other hand, was able
to establish that Marcelino, Myra and Ranada committed the crimes imputed against them, they
having been caught in flagrante delicto. This Court, being convinced that the guilt of Marcelino,
Myra, and Ranada have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, must uphold their conviction.

As to Apelo, Abache, Cipriano, Latario, Madarang, and Sumulong, the Court finds that they should
be acquitted of the offense of violation of Section 14, Article II, RA 9165, since the prosecution was
not able to clearly show specific overt acts that would prove that they were in possession of drug
paraphernalia.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The February 28, 2008 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02626 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that appellants Mark
Cipriano and Samuel Sherwin Latario, including co-accused Melody Apelo, Marwin Abache, Michael
Angelo Sumulong, and Jay Madarang are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of Section
14, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. They are ordered released unless they are being lawfully held
for some other cause.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

* Also referred to as Samuel Sherwin Latorio y Enriquez in some parts of the records.

** Also referred to as Reynaldo Rañada y Alas in some parts of the records.

1 CA rollo, pp. 181-207; penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and concurred
in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Ricardo R. Rosario.

2 Records, pp 201-213; penned by Judge Abraham B. Borreta.

3 Id. at 1.

4 Id. at 21.

5 Id. at 23.
6 Id. at 26-27.

7 Id. at 31-41.

8 TSN, January 6, 2005, p. 5.

9 Id. at 5-6.

10 Records, p. 202.

11 Id. at 150.

12 TSN, January 6, 2005, p. 10.

13 Id. at 12.

14 Chemistry Report No. D-807-04, records, p. 147.

15 Chemistry Report Nos. DT-692-04 to DT-700-04, id. at 151.

16 TSN, August 10, 2005, pp. 19-20.

17 TSN, July 13, 2005, pp. 14-15; TSN, August 10, 2005, p. 16.

18 Records, pp. 201-213.

19 Records, pp. 212-213.

20 Id. at 217-218.

21 Id. at 216.

22 Id. at 193-194.

23 Id. at 204.

24 CA rollo, pp. 181-207.

25 See Resolution dated June 11, 2008, id. at 216-217.

26 Id. at 26.

27 Id. at 95-98.

28 People v. Judge Laguio, Jr., 547 Phil. 296, 329 (2007).

29 Esquillo v. People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 370, 382.

30 Id.
 31 People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 633, 641.

32 Id.

33G.R. No. 184174, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 717, 727 citing People v. Bayani, G.R. No.
179150, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 741, 753 and People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July
28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 454.

34 Rollo, p. 44.

35 People v. Campos, G.R. No. 186526, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 462, 467.

36 TSN, January 6, 2005, p. 15.

37 Records, p. 17-18.

38 Id. at 19.

39 People v. Padua, G.R. No. 174097, July 21, 2010, 625 SCRA 220, 235.

40 People v. Habana, G.R. No. 188900, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 433, 438.

41Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No.
9165.

42 Records, pp. 211-212.

43 CA rollo, p. 204. Citation omitted.

44 Citing Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 2008 edition.

45 Records, p. 211.

46 CA rollo, p. 204, Citation omitted.

47 TSN, January 6, 2005, pp. 12-13.

48 TSN, June 22, 2005, pp. 4-5.

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 181111, August 17, 2015

JACKSON PADIERNOS Y QUEJADA, JACKIE ROXAS Y GERMAN AND ROLANDO MESINA Y

JAVATE, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

BRION, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners Jackson Padieraos y Quejada
(Padiernos), Jackie Roxas y German (Roxas) and Rolando Mesina y Javate (Mesina). The petitioners seek
the reversal of the Court of Appeals' (CA) decision1 dated May 10, 2007 and resolution2 dated December
20, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR No. 28920. The assailed CA rulings affirmed with modification the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66, Baler, Aurora in Criminal Case No. 3122.

The petitioners were charged as accessories to the crime of illegal possession of lumber, in violation of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705 or the Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines. According to the
Information, the petitioners took away the truck that carried the lumber to prevent its use as evidence
and to avoid its confiscation and forfeiture. The Information specifically states as follows:

That at about 6:00 o'clock in the morning on November 15, 2002, in Caragsacan, Dingalan, Aurora, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the aforesaid principals, confederating together and
mutually helping one another, did then and there, unlawfully, feloniously and willfully have in their
possession and control 818 pieces of lumber with a total volume of 10,253 board feet and valued at
P133,289.00 loaded on a ten-wheeler truck with Plate No. TFZ-747 and owned by the accused Santiago
Castillo y Cruz without any permit, license or documents from the proper authority and that at about
3:00 o'clock in the afternoon on the following day, November 16, 2002, the aforesaid accessories,
confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously
and willfully take and carry away the aforementioned ten wheeler truck with Plate No. TFZ-747 so it
could not be used as evidence and avoid confiscation and forfeiture in favor of the government as tool
or instrument of the crime, [emphasis and italics supplied]

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Accused Santiago Castillo (Santiago), Frederico Castillo (Frederico), and Roger Mostera (Mostera) remain
at large; accused Eddie Gatdula (Gatdula) pleaded not guilty as principal to the crime; whilepetitioners
Padiernos, Mesina, and Roxas pleaded not guilty as accessories to the crime.

Prosecution's evidence

The presented evidence of the prosecution shows that on November 15, 2002, the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Officer (DENRO) Felimon Balico (Balico) approached a truck loaded
with lumber, which was parked at a national highway in Dingalan, Aurora (Dingalan)3 The truck bore the
name "JEROME" with Plate No. TFZ-747. Balico requested from the truck driver, Frederico, and the truck
helper, Mostera, the lumber's supporting documents but they failed to produce any.

Balico reported the matter to SPO4 Ramil Gamboa (Gamboa) and SPO4 Romulo Derit. Thereafter, he
proceeded to the DENR office to report the incident. Some of the DENROs represented that the
transportation of the seized lumber had the required permit but they, too, failed to produce any
supporting document.
The DENRO group - composed of Balico, Tarcila Vivero (Vivero) and Rodolfo Tumagan (Tumagan) - and
the policemen, Gamboa and Romulo Derit, guarded the truck loaded with lumber.4

The DENRO group decided to transfer the truck and the lumber to the police station at Poblacion. They
transferred the lumber first from November 15 to November 16, 2002, and left the truck at the national
highway in Dingalan, guarded by the DENROs and some police officers.5

On November 16, 2002, accused Gatdula, Santiago, and petitioners Mesina, Roxas, and Padiernos
arrived at the place where the truck was being held in custody.6

Santiago, who claimed ownership of the truck,7 agreed with the DENROs and the police officers to bring
the truck to the police station. Santiago gave the truck key to Mesina who volunteered to drive the
truck; while Padiernos asked Balico where the seized lumbers were.8

Mesina started the engine and Roxas, Santiago, and Padiernos immediately got on board at the front of
the truck. The DENRO group also got on board at the back of the truck. SPO2 Renato Mendoza
(Mendoza) and his companion, PO1 John Fajardo (Fajardo) follow on a motorcycle.

Since the truck was then parked opposite the direction to the police station, Balico thought that Mesina
would maneuver the truck so that they could proceed to the police station. To their surprise, Mesina
increased the truck's speed and headed towards the direction of Nueva Ecija, leaving behind their two
policemen escorts9 who chased the truck and fired three warning shots.10

As the truck sped faster, Balico yelled "Saklolo! Saklolo!" but the truck maintained its speed. SPO2
Mendoza corroborated this testimony; he and Fajardo saw the three DENROs waving but could not hear
what they were saying.

When the truck had exited Dingalan, SPO2 Mendoza and Fajardo decided not to pursue the truck
anymore and simply reported the incident to the Philippine Army stationed at Brgy. Tanawan.

The Philippine Army blocked the road with a 50-caliber machine gun and flagged down the truck at Brgy.
Bagting, Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija.11

As the truck passengers alighted, petitioner Padiernos uttered bad words to them, saying that they had
no right to apprehend the truck and the lumber.12

Police officers Gamboa, Joemar Balmores, Sagudang, Fajardo, and Mendoza13 immediately proceeded to
Brgy. Bagting where they found the DENRO group, Padiernos, and Roxas. The DENROs and the
policemen proceeded back to Dingalan, with police officer Gamboa driving the truck to the police
station compound.

Evidence for the defense

Mesina testified that on November 16, 2002, he was watching television with his wife and children when
his former employer, Santiago, arrived and asked him to bring the latter's truck to Cabanatuan City. He
refused Santiago's request because he knew that the truck had been engaged in illegal activities;
particularly, the truck had been previously loaded with lumber that were confiscated.14

Santiago insisted and assured him that he would take care of everything and that there was really no
problem with the truck. Mesina finally agreed and rode in Santiago's car. Santiago asked him to fetch
Roxas to accompany them.15

Roxas was resting in his house when Santiago and Mesina arrived. Santiago asked Roxas if he could drive
his truck to Cabanatuan City.16 Roxas refused because he had already heard of the truck's
apprehension,17 but he finally relented after Santiago assured him that there was no problem with the
truck. They proceeded to Caragsacan, Dingalan where the truck was parked.18 On cross-examination,
Roxas testified that he knew very well that the vehicle was a "hot" truck but he relied on Santiago's
claim that the problem already been settled.19

On their way to Caragsacan, Dingalan, they saw Padiernos at the waiting shed of Aplayang Malaki,
Dingalan.20 According to Padiernos, he had been waiting for a ride to Cabanatuan City from 12:30 to
1:30 p.m. but only Santiago's group came by.21 Padiernos hitched a ride with them after learning that
they would bring Santiago's truck to Cabanatuan City.22

Padiernos testified that he only learned where the truck was parked when they reached Caragsacan.23

On reaching the place where the truck was parked, they all alighted from the car and walked towards
the back of the truck; Padiernos crossed the street. Mesina saw Santiago talk to DENRO Tumagan and
several other persons for about 25 to 30 minutes.24

Thereafter, Santiago handed the truck keys to Mesina.25 Padiernos seated himself in the front cab of the
truck with Santiago and Roxas, while Mesina took the driver's seat.26 Mesina drove the car towards
Cabanatuan City upon Santiago's instruction.27

The petitioners unanimously testified that they did not hear people shouting or tapping on the truck to
stop them.28 They also did not notice any motorcycle following them as the truck's side mirrors were
broken. They did not reach Cabanatuan City because the Philippine Army flagged them down.29

After the incident, Padiernos boarded a jeepney bound for Cabanatuan City while Roxas and Mesina
boarded a jeepney bound for Dingalan.30

The RTC's ruling

The RTC convicted petitioners Padiernos, Mesina and Roxas as accessories to the crime of violation of
P.D. 705.31

The RTC ruled that the petitioners had a common design to take away the truck that earlier had been
used in violating P.D. No. 705 or the Forestry Reform Code.32

The RTC found that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were categorical, straightforward, and
consistent; they had no improper motive to testify falsely against the petitioners.33 Thus, the RTC
disregarded the petitioners' defense that they did not intentionally take away the truck.34

The RTC also found that the petitioners' testimonies and admissions established their prior knowledge
that the truck had been previously confiscated for illegal transport of forest products. This explains the
reluctance of Mesina and Roxas to go with Santiago in getting the truck.35

The RTC further ruled that Padiernos' defense of denial fails in view of Balico's testimony that Padiernos
gave the DENROs a "tongue-lashing" as they had no right to apprehend the truck and its
cargo.36 Padiernos' knowledge of the status of the truck is also undeniable as he admitted his familiarity
with the townsfolk of Dingalan and its rampant problem of illegal transport of forest products. The RTC
concluded that the incident and the personalities involved could not have escaped Padiernos' notice, yet
he still went with them to get the truck.37

Finally, the RTC disregarded the petitioners' claim that they did not hear the policemen's warning shots
and the DENROs' shouts because of the noisy engine and the defective windows of the truck. The RTC
had observed during its ocular inspection of the truck that both windows were in order and sounds
outside could be clearly heard even with a running engine.38

The CA's ruling

The CA affirmed the RTC's decision and adopted its factual findings, but modified the penalty imposed
on the petitioners.39

The CA considered the subject truck as an "instrument" in the commission of the offense, within the
meaning of Article 19, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). While the lumber had already been
unloaded and placed in police custody, the truck still served as the essential link to the discovery of the
loaded undocumented lumber. Similarly, its presentation as evidence is material in proving the
commission of the offense of violation of P.D. 705, as amended.40

The CA added that since the petitioners' violation of P.D. 705 is mala prohibita, their intent, motive, or
knowledge need not be shown. Nevertheless, their defense of denial must fail in view of the evidence
on record and their own admissions that they were aware of the truck's involvement in an illegal activity
at the time that they drove it towards Nueva Ecija.41

The prosecution had also clearly established Padiernos's close association with Santiago, Roxas, and
Mesina. Padiernos previously facilitated Santiago's application for mayor's permit as a lumber dealer;
Roxas is a family friend of Padiernos and his father is Padiernos's driver, while Mesina and Padiernos' are
long-time acquaintances.42

The Parties' Arguments

The petitioners argue that they could not be held liable as accessories for violation of P.D. 705 because
the DENROs and the police authorities had already discovered the crime and had, in fact, control over
the truck when the petitioners drove it towards Nueva Ecija.43 Article 19 of the RPC only punishes
accessories who prevent the discovery of the crime.44

On the other hand, the respondent maintains that the petitioners' acts were aimed at preventing the
discovery of the crime. The respondent alleges that without the truck, the accused in the present case
could easily produce the necessary transportation documents to account for the entire volume of the
confiscated lumber.45 The respondent refers to the testimony of James Martinez of CENRO Dingalan
who tried to make it appear that the seized lumber had the proper transportation permit for 8,254
board feet and 261 pieces of lumber. This transportation permit did not tally, however, with the actual
volume of the confiscated lumber of 10,253 board feet, totaling 818 pieces.46

The Court's Ruling

We emphasize at the outset the well-settled doctrine that an appeal throws the whole case wide open
for review. An appeal therefore empowers, and even obligates, the appellate court to correct errors as
may be found in the appealed judgment even if these errors have not been raised. It is likewise settled
that when an accused appeals, he opens the whole case for a new trial.47

The Court is therefore not precluded from determining the correct criminal liability of the appealing
accused, and from imposing the corresponding punishment in accordance with the charges in the
Information and the crime proved during trial.

Thus, in People v. Manalili et al.,48 the Court held that since the Information in that case contained a
specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessarily constituting both the crimes of illegal
possession of firearms and of murder, the separate crime of multiple murder may be validly taken into
account49 in the resolution of the appeal before the Court, although the appellants have been acquitted
of illegal possession of firearms. The Court ruled that the appellants in that case were fairly apprised of
the nature of the crime of multiple murder and granted a fair opportunity to defend themselves.

Even with this premise, we find that insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the facts alleged in the
Information and the crime proved in the present case do not make the petitioners liable as accessories
for violation of P.D. 705. They are, however, liable for violation of Section 1(b) of P.D. 1829.

The petitioners are not liable as accessories to the crime

The well-settled doctrine is that the allegations in the Information determine the nature of the offense,
and not the technical name that the public prosecutor assigns in the preamble of the Information. From
a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, the accused is not concerned with the technical name of
the crime of which he stands charged. It in no way aids him in a defense on the merits. His attention
should be directed and his interest should be on the facts alleged. The real question is not "did he
commit a crime given in the law with some technical and specific name," but "did he perform
the acts alleged in the body of the information in the manner therein set forth."50

In the present case, the Information charges the petitioners of committing the following acts:

xxx the aforesaid accessories, confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and
there unlawfully, feloniously and willfully take and carry away the aforementioned ten wheeler truck
with Plate No. TFZ-747 so it could not be used as evidence and avoid confiscation and forfeiture in
favor of the government as tool or instrument of the crime.

Applying the doctrine, the controlling charge against the petitioners is not the allegation that they were
accessories to the crime, which is merely the public prosecutor's conclusion of law or the technical
name of an accused's criminal participation under Article 19 of the RPC, but the factual
charges against them. In short, their alleged acts control in defining the crime for which they should
stand trial.

These material factual allegations pertain to their act of conspiring with each other to take and carry
away the subject truck so that it could not be used as evidence and to avoid its confiscation and
forfeiture in favor of the government as tool or instrument of the crime. Notably, the petitioners had
been sufficiently apprised of these factual allegations, against which they should defend themselves.

Reading the facts alleged in the Information and proved at the trial, in relation with the legal definition
of "accessories" under Article 19 of the RPC, we find that the RTC and the CA erred in convicting the
accused as accessories to the crime of violation of P.D. 705.

Article 19, paragraph 251 defines "accessories" as those who, with knowledge of the commission of the
crime and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent
to its commission by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, its effects or instruments, in
order to prevent its discovery.

Under this provision, the punished acts should have been committed for the purpose of preventing the
discovery of the crime.52
In the present case, the crime punishable under P.D. 705 - the illegal possession of lumber - had
already been discovered at the time the petitioners took the truck. This discovery led to the
confiscation of the truck and the loaded lumber on November 15, 2002. The petitioners took the truck
on November 16, 2002, after its confiscation.

In these lights, the petitioners are not liable as accessories to the crime charged in the Information as
the legal definition of the technical term "accessories" does not coincide with the factual allegations in
the Information that serves as the actual criminal charge against the petitioners.

The factual allegations in the Information constitute the crime of obstruction of justice under Section
1(b) of P.D. 1829

The petitioners, however, cannot go scot-free. The factual allegations in the Information, while not
constituting an offense committed by accessories under Article 19, paragraph 2 of the RPC, constitute
instead the criminal offense of obstruction of justice, which is defined under Section 1(b) of P.D. No.
1829 entitled "Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders."

P.D. 1829 addresses the necessity of penalizing acts which obstruct or frustrate or tend to obstruct or
frustrate the successful apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders.

Under Section 1(b) of P.D. 1829, the crime of obstruction of justice is committed through the following
acts:

Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to
6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes,
frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal
cases by committing any of the following acts:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

xxxx

(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, orobject, with intent to
impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of
or official proceedings in criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in
criminal cases; xxx" [emphasis supplied]

The factual allegations in the Information, as duly proved during trial, show that the petitioners' acts
actually constituted a violation of Section 1(b) above.

First, the Information duly alleges all the essential elements of the crime of obstruction of justice under
Section 1(b).
The factual allegations in the Information clearly charge the accused of taking and carrying away the
truck so that it could not be used as evidence and to avoid its confiscation and forfeiture in favor of
the government as a tool or instrument of the crime.

In the present case, the truck that carried the undocumented lumber serves as material evidence that is
indispensable in the criminal investigation and prosecution for violation of P.D. 705. Particularly, the
truck is an indispensable link to the persons involved in the illegal possession/transportation of the
seized lumber as the permit for the transportation of the lumber necessarily involves the truck and the
lumber. According to DENR forest ranger Rogelio Pajimna,53the transport of lumber should be covered
with supporting documents that should be in the possession of the transporter.

Second, the petitioners deliberately took the truck or "suppressed" this particular evidence. The term
"suppress" means to subdue or end by force.54

Specifically, the petitioners intentionally suppressed the truck as evidence, with the intent to impair its
availability and prevent its use as evidence in the criminal investigation or proceeding for violation of
P.D. 705. This intent was duly proved during trial.

It is undisputed that Santiago owns the truck, which serves as his link to the illegal possession/transport
of the seized lumber. Santiago had every reason and motive to take his truck after its confiscation.
Without the truck, Santiago could be exculpated and the forthcoming criminal investigation or
proceedings for violation of P.D. 705 would be frustrated.

The petitioners' intent to take and carry away the truck is established by their knowledge of the status
of the truck and their commission of the crime at Santiago's prompting.

Notably, both the RTC and the CA correctly considered the testimonies of the witnesses and the
petitioners' admissions in ruling that the petitioners knew that the truck had been involved in the illegal
transportation/possession of the seized lumber.

Mesina admitted that he knew the truck's involvement in illegal activities as it had beenpreviously
loaded with lumber that was confiscated.

According to Mesina, Roxas also initially refused to go with them because he already heard the news
of the truck's apprehension. Roxas admitted that he only agreed to join Santiago and Mesina, after
being assured that there was no problem with the truck.

Padiernos' demeanor after the army flagged them down establishes his knowledge of the truck's
involvement with the seized lumber. Padiernos uttered bad words at the DENROs, saying they had no
right to apprehend the truck and the lumber. This testimony, together with his close association with
the other petitioners, destroys his flimsy defense of denial.
The RTC's findings during its ocular inspection of the truck also prove that the petitioners deliberately
drove the truck to Nueva Ecija despite evident knowledge of the policemen's warning shots, tapping,
and the DENROs shouting for help from the back of the truck.

Clearly, these testimonies, the petitioners' admissions, and the findings of the trial court negate the
petitioners' defense of denial of their intent to take the truck and their knowledge of the truck's
involvement in an illegal activity.

The unanimous factual findings of the RTC and the CA - such as the petitioners' close association with
each other, their flimsy defense of denial of their intent to take away the truck, and the totality of their
acts showing their common design to take the truck - lead us to conclude that the petitioners had
indeed mutually conspired with one another to take away the truck to suppress it from being used as
evidence in the criminal investigation or proceeding for violation of P.D. 705.

Since the crime charged in the Information and the crime proved during trial point to the petitioners'
violation of P.D. 1829, we reverse the CA's findings and find the petitioners guilty of Section 1(b) of P.D.
1829.

Under Section 1 of the same law, the penalty for the crime of obstruction of justice is prision
correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from P1,000.00 to P6,000.00 pesos, or
both.55chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and REVERSE the Court of Appeals' decision dated May 10, 2007,
and its resolution dated December 20, 2007. We find petitioners Jackson Padiernos y Quejada, Jackie
Roxas y German, and Rolando Mesina y Javate GUILTY for violation of Section 1(b) of P.D. 1829. They are
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of prision correccional for 4 years, 9 months, and 11 days to 5
years, 4 months, and 20 days.

SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Leonen, and Jardeleza,* JJ., concur.

September 29, 2015

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT

Sir/Madam:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Please take notice that on August 17, 2015 a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the
Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on
September 29, 2015 at 2:17 p.m.

Very truly yours,

(SGD)
MA. LOURDES C. FERFECTO
Division Clerk of Court
BY:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

*
Designated as Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza, per Raffle dated August
17, 2015.

1
Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, concurred in by Associate Justices Conrado M.
Vasquez, Jr., and Jose C. Mendoza, rollo, p. 77.

2
Id. at 92.

3
Id. at 36.

4
Id. at 34.

5
Id. at 36.

6
Id. at 33.

7
Id. at 34, 36, and 39.

8
Id. at 34 and 36.

9
Id. at 34.

10
Id. at 39.

11
Id. at 34.
12
Id.

13
Id. at 39.

14
Id. at 42-44, testimony of Mesina.

15
Id.

16
Id. at 41.

17
Id. at 42-44, testimony of Mesina.

18
Id. at 41-42, testimony of Roxas.

19
Id. at 42.

20
Id. at 39- 43, testimonies of Padiernos, Roxas and Mesina.

21
Id. at 39-40, testimony of Padiernos.

22
Id. at 42-44, testimony of Mesina.

23
Id. at 40.

24
Id. at 39-43, testimonies of Padiernos, Roxas and Mesina.

25
Id. at 40 and 43.

26
Id. at 39-43, testimonies of Padiernos, Roxas and Mesina.

27
Id. at. 43.

28
Id. at 39-43, testimonies of Padiernos, Roxas and Mesina.

29
Id. at 40, 42, and 43.

30
Id. at 42.

31
Id. at 131-132.

32
Id. at 130 and 132.
33
Id. at 127.

34
Id.

35
Id. at 128.

36
Id. at 129.

37
Id.

38
Id. at 130.

39
Id. at 75.

40
Id. at 60.

41
Id. at. 68.

42
Id. at 70.

43
Id. at 14.

44
Id. at 13.

45
Id.

46
Id. at 144-145.

47
People v. Llaguno, et al., G.R. No. 91262, January 28, 1998, 285 SCRA 124, 147.

48
355 Phil. 652, 688-689 (1998).

49
The appellants in this case did not file a motion to quash the information that charges two offenses;
thus, they were deemed to have waived this objection.

50
Matrido v. People, 610 Phil. 203, 210-211 (2009).

51
Article 19. ACCESSORIES . - Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the
crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent
to its commission in any of the following manners: xxx
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to
prevent its discovery; xxx

52
People v. Versola, 170 Phil 622, 632 (1977).

53
Rollo, pp. 37-38.

54
Black Law's Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 1291.

55
See Section 1 of P.D. 1829.