FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 116001. March 14, 2001]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LUISITO GO y KO alias “KING LOUIE”, accused-appellant.
[G.R. No. 123943. March 14, 2001]
LUISITO GO y CO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
On October 22, 1992, at
around 10:00 o’clock in the evening, SPO1 Mauro Piamonte and SPO3 Candido
Liquido, members of the Intelligence and Follow-up Unit of the Calamba Police,
went to the police outpost at Crossing, Calamba, Laguna, to follow up an
intelligence report that methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, a regulated
drug, was being supplied there. Police
civilian agent Ronnie Panuringan arrived and reported to them that he saw
accused-appellant Luisito Go, also known as “King Louie”, enter the Flamingo
Disco House with two women. Panuringan
said that he spotted a gun tucked in accused-appellant’s waist. Together, the three policemen proceeded to
the Flamingo, which was located about a hundred meters away from the outpost.
When they arrived at the
Flamingo, the police officers informed the owner that they were conducting an
“Operation Bakal,” whereby they search for illegally possessed firearms. The owner allowed them in and told a waiter
to accompany them. They went up to the
second floor of the disco. The waiter
turned on the lights, and the police officers saw accused-appellant and his
lady companions seated at a table. They
identified themselves and asked accused-appellant to stand up. When the latter did so, the policemen saw the
gun tucked in his waist. SPO1 Piamonte
asked for the license of the gun, but accused-appellant was unable to produce
any. Instead, accused-appellant brought
out the driver’s license of a certain Tan Antonio Lerios. SPO1 Piamonte confiscated the gun, which was
later identified as a 9mm Walther P88, Serial Number 006784, with a magazine
containing ten (10) rounds of live ammunition.
Accused-appellant was invited to the police precinct for questioning.
On the way out of the
disco, accused-appellant asked permission to bring his car, which was parked
outside. The police officers
accompanied accused-appellant to his car, a Honda Civic with license plate
number TCM-789. Through the windshield,
SPO3 Liquido noticed a Philippine National Police identification card hanging
from the rearview mirror. He asked
accused-appellant if he was a member of the PNP, and he said no. The police officers asked accused-appellant
for his driver’s license and the registration papers of the vehicle, but he was
unable to produce them. When
accused-appellant opened the door, SPO3 Liquido took the ID card and found that
the same belonged to SPO4 Zenaida Bagadiong.
The police officers saw pieces of glass tooters and tin foils on the
backseat and floor of the car. They
asked accused-appellant why he had these items, but he did not say
anything. Instead, accused-appellant
suggested that they talk the matter over, and intimated that he had money. SPO3 Liquido replied that they should talk
at the police headquarters.
Accused-appellant took out an attaché case from the car and opened
it. There were two black clutch bags
inside. Accused-appellant opened the
first bag, which contained shiny white substance wrapped in cellophane. The second bag contained P120,000.00 in
cash.
The police officers
brought accused-appellant to the police station. When they arrived at the precinct, they turned over the attaché
case together with the two black clutch bags to the investigator. The investigator found eight cellophane bags
containing granules suspected to be shabu in one of the clutch bags. When the attaché case was opened, the police
officers found that it also contained three glass tooters, tin foils, an
improvised burner, magazines and newspapers.[1]
Consequently, two
Informations were filed against accused-appellant before the Regional Trial
Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 34.
The first Information, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 3308-92-C,
charged accused-appellant with violation of Article III of R.A. 6452 (Dangerous
Drugs Act), committed as follows:
That on or about October 22, 1992 at Brgy. I, Crossing,
Municipality of Calamba, province of Laguna, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized/permitted
by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession, control and custody 750 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride
known as “SHABU”, a regulated drug, in violation of the above-stated law.[2]
The other Information,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 3309-92-C, charged accused-appellant with
violation of P.D. 1866, committed as follows:
That on or about October 22, 1992, at Flamingo Beerhouse, Crossing,
Municipality of Calamba, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused above-named not being licensed or authorized by
law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession, custody and control one (1) caliber .9mm marked “WALTHER” with
serial number 006784 with one (1) magazine loaded with ten (10) live
ammunitions of same caliber, in violation of the aforementioned law.[3]
After a joint trial, the
lower court rendered judgment convicting accused-appellant in the two criminal
cases, to wit:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused in Criminal Case No. 3308-92-C, to be GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of having in his possession of 750.39 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug. He is hereby sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine of TWELVE THOUSAND (P12,000.00) PESOS; and in Criminal Case No. 3309-92-C, the accused is also found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm, and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua.
Considering that the accused appears to be detained at the Makati
Police Station, jailer, Makati Police Station is hereby ordered to commit the
accused to the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Correction, Muntinlupa, Metro
Manila. The bond posted by the accused
in Criminal Cases No. 3308-92-C & 3309-92-C, are hereby ordered cancelled.[4]
Accused-appellant
appealed his conviction in Criminal Case No. 3309-92-C directly to this Court,
considering that the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, which appeal
was docketed as G.R. No. 116001.
On the other hand,
accused-appellant brought his appeal of the judgment in Criminal Case No.
3308-92-C before the Court of Appeals.[5] In an Amended Decision dated February 21,
1996, the Court of Appeals affirmed accused-appellant’s conviction but modified
the penalty imposed by the trial court by sentencing him, in addition to
imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, to pay a
fine of six thousand pesos (P6,000.00), citing Section 8 of R.A. 6425, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.[6] Hence, this petition for review, docketed as
G.R. No. 123943.
The two cases were
consolidated.[7]
Accused-appellant assails
the validity of his arrest and his subsequent convictions for the two
crimes. Both the trial court and the
Court of Appeals found that the arrest and subsequent seizure were legal. A review of the records at bar shows no
reason to depart therefrom.
The constitutional
proscription, that no person shall be arrested without any warrant of arrest
having been issued prior thereto,[8] is not a hard-and-fast rule. The Rules of Court and jurisprudence recognize
exceptional cases where an arrest may be effected without a warrant.[9] Among these are when, in the presence of a
peace officer, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense; or when an offense has in fact just been
committed, and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested has committed it.
In the cases at bar, the
police saw the gun tucked in appellant’s waist when he stood up. The gun was plainly visible. No search was conducted as none was
necessary. Accused-appellant could not
show any license for the firearm, whether at the time of his arrest or
thereafter. Thus, he was in effect
committing a crime in the presence of the police officers. No warrant of arrest was necessary in such a
situation, it being one of the recognized exceptions under the Rules.
As a consequence of
appellant’s valid warrantless arrest, he may be lawfully searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense,
without a search warrant, as provided in Rule 126, Section 12. This is a valid
search incidental to the lawful arrest.[10] The subsequent discovery in his car of drug
paraphernalia and the crystalline substance, which was later identified as
shabu, though in a distant place from where the illegal possession of firearm
was committed, cannot be said to have been made during an illegal search. As such, the seized items do not fall within
the exclusionary clause, which states that any evidence obtained in violation
of the right against warrantless arrest cannot be used for any purposes in any
proceeding.[11] Hence, not being fruits of the poisonous
tree, so to speak, the objects found at the scene of the crime, such as the
firearm, the shabu and the drug paraphernalia, can be used as evidence against
appellant. Besides, it has been held
that drugs discovered as a result of a consented search is admissible in
evidence.[12]
Under P.D. 1866, the
essence of the crime is the accused’s lack of license or permit to carry or
possess firearm, ammunition, or explosive.
Possession by itself is not prohibited by law.[13] In prosecutions for illegal possession of
firearm, the element of absence of license to possess the firearm may be
established through the testimony of or a certification from a representative
of the Firearms and Explosives Bureau[14]of the Philippine National Police (FEB-PNP),
attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm.[15] In this case, a representative of the
FEB-PNP testified that accused-appellant was not a holder of any gun license.[16] Moreover, a certification[17]to that effect was presented to corroborate
his testimony. These pieces of evidence
suffice to establish the second element of the offense of possession of
unlicensed firearms.[18] However, in a vain attempt to exculpate
himself, accused-appellant presented for the first time an alleged firearm
license, which was described as “Annex 2” of his petition. Accused-appellant’s counsel admitted that
said document was not presented below “for some reason.”[19] Whatever those reasons are, he did not
specify. The document, however, is
dubious. It is too late in the day for
accused-appellant to proffer this very vital piece of evidence which might
exculpate him. First, the
reception of evidence is best addressed to the trial court because it entails
questions of fact. It should be
emphasized that this Court is not a trier of facts.[20] Second, the document marked as “Annex
2” of the petition in G.R. No. 123943 is not the license referred to, but an
order of the trial court resetting the date of arraignment.[21] Third, there is attached to the
petition a firearm license[22] which is a mere photocopy and, as such,
cannot be appreciated by this Court.
Indeed, considering that this was the one piece of evidence which could
spell accused-appellant’s acquittal of the unlicensed firearm charge, and
assuming that, as shown in the face of the license, it was issued on October 7,
1992, there should be no reason for its non-production during the trial. Fourth, and most importantly, the
genuineness of the purported license becomes all the more suspect in view of
the Certification issued by the FEO-PNP that accused-appellant was not a
licensed firearm holder.
Anent
the certification issued by the FEO-PNP to the effect that Luisito Go y Ko was
not a licensed gun holder, accused-appellant claims that he was not the person
alluded to therein because the correct spelling of his middle name is not “Ko”
but “Co.” Whatever the correct spelling of his name is, the fact remains that
he had no license on the day the gun was found in his possession. All that he could present then was a
photocopy of his application for gun license,[23] which is not the equivalent of a
license. Appellant testified that he
presented a firearm license to the police,[24] but he could not produce that alleged
license in court. If appellant was
indeed a licensed gun holder and if that license existed on October 22, 1992,
he could have easily presented it to the police when he was asked for his
papers inside the disco, or if the alleged license was in his car, he could
have easily shown it to them when they went to his car. Otherwise, he could have easily asked his
lawyer or relative to bring the license to the police precinct when he was
being investigated. Despite several
opportunities to produce a license, he failed to do so. In fact, during trial, he never presented
any such license. And on appeal, he
could only submit for the first time and for unknown reasons an alleged
photocopy of a purported license. The
only plausible conclusion that can be drawn is that there was no such license
in the first place. Hence, his guilt of
illegal possession of firearm was duly established.
Accused-appellant’s guilt
for illegal possession of shabu has likewise been proven beyond reasonable
doubt. The white crystalline substance
found in his possession, upon laboratory examination, were positively identified
as methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug.[25]
The bulk of
accused-appellant’s defense revolves around the factual findings of the trial
court. It should be recalled that
factual findings of the trial court, if supported by evidence on record, and
particularly when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding on this Court.[26] As discussed above, the records substantiate
the trial court’s and the appellate court’s findings as to accused-appellant’s
culpability. There is no reason to
depart from these findings as no significant facts and circumstances were shown
to have been overlooked or disregarded which, if considered, would have altered
the outcome of the case.[27] Moreover, questions as to credibility of
witness are matters best left to the appreciation of the trial court because of
its unique opportunity of having observed that elusive and incommunicable
evidence of the witness’ deportment on the stand while testifying, which
opportunity is denied to the reviewing tribunal.[28]
In the case at bar, the
trial court found:
The narration of the incident by the police is far more worthy of
belief coming as it does from law enforcers who are presumed to have regularly
performed their duties and were not demonstrated to have been unduly biased
against the accused.[29]
Similarly, the Court of Appeals
held that:
(T)he findings of fact of the trial court are generally respected
by the appellate court, unless they are found to be clearly biased or
arbitrary. We do not find any in these
cases.[30]
The crime of illegal
possession of firearm, committed in 1992, regardless of whether the firearm is
low powered or high powered, was punished with the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death, as provided in P.D. 1866. However, under R.A. No. 8294, which took effect on July 6, 1997,[31] the penalty was lowered to prision
correcional in its maximum period and a fine of P30,000.00, if the firearm[32] is classified as low powered. In this case, the unlicensed firearm found
in appellant’s possession was a 9mm Walther pistol, which under the amendatory
law, is considered as low powered.
Inasmuch as the new law imposes a reduced penalty and is, thus, more
favorable to accused-appellant, the same may be given retroactive effect.[33] Therefore, accused-appellant is sentenced to
an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day
of prision correccional, as maximum, and a fine of P30,000.00.
On the other hand, the
crime of illegal possession of regulated drug, under the law in force at the
time of the commission of the offense in this case, was punished by
imprisonment of from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a
fine ranging from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00,[34] regardless of the amount of drugs
involved. Hence, accused-appellant is
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day, as
minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P12,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court finding
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of
firearm is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that he is sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day
of prision correccional, as maximum, and a fine of P30,000.00. The decision of the trial court finding
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of
750.39 grams of shabu and drug paraphernalia, is likewise AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that he is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years
and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum, and to pay a
fine of P12,000.00. The shabu and subject
drug paraphernalia seized from appellant shall be destroyed as provided by law.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.
(Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo,
JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo,
G.R. No. 123943, pp. 194-197.
[2] Rollo,
G.R. No. 116001, p. 18.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Decision
dated April 15, 1994; penned by Judge Francisco Ma. Guerrero; RTC Records, p.
81.
[5] CA-G.R.
CR No. 16163.
[6] Rollo,
G.R. No. 123943, p. 214.
[7] Rollo,
G.R. No. 116001, p. 121.
[8] 1987
Constitution, Article III, Section 2 - 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.
[9] Rule 113, 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 personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has 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.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the
person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest
police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with
Rule 112, Section 7.
[10] People
v. Lua, 256 SCRA 539 (1996).
[11] Constitution,
Article III, Section 3(2) - Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
[12] People
v. Cuizon, 326 Phil. 345.
[13] People
v. Cortez, G.R. No. 131619-20, February 1, 2000.
[14] Formerly
Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO).
[15] Cadua
v. CA and People, G.R. No. 123123, August 19, 1999; People v. Tobias,
334 Phil. 881; Rosales v. CA, 255 SCRA 123 (1996); People v.
Orehuela, 232 SCRA 82 (1994); Mallari v. CA and People, 265 SCRA 456
(1996) citing People v. Solayao, 262 SCRA 255 (1996).
[16] TSN,
June 22, 1993, p. 16.
[17] Exhibit
“A”, Folder of Exhibits.
[18] Padilla
v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 402 (1997); Rosales v. CA, 255 SCRA
123 (1996); People v. Orehuela, 232 SCRA 82 (1994).
[19] Footnote 16 of the Petition for Certiorari,
G.R. No. 123943, p. 17; Rollo, p. 25, 171.
[20] Ceremionia
v. CA, G.R. No. 103453, September
21, 1999.
[21] Rollo,
G.R. No. 123943, pp. 136-138.
[22] Ibid.,
p. 187.
[23] TSN,
August 10, 1993, pp. 15-16.
[24] TSN,
August 10, 1993, p. 25.
[25] Chemistry
Report No. D-472-92 of the Crime laboratory Service of the PNP in Camp Vicente
Lim, Laguna - Exhibit “B”, Folder of Exhibits.
[26] Romago
Electric v. CA, G.R. No. 125947, June 8, 2000.
See also – People v. Gayomma, G.R. No. 128129, September 30, 1999.
[27] Dizon
v. CA, 311 SCRA 1 (1999); People v. Auxtero, 351 Phil. 1001.
[28] People
v. Silvano, 309 SCRA 362 (1999); People v. Dizon, 309 SCRA 669
(1999).
[29] RTC
Decision, p. 21.
[30] CA
Decision, p. 12; Rollo in G.R. No. 123943, p. 204.
[31] People
v. Macoy, Jr., G.R. No. 126253, August 16, 2000; People v.
Lazaro, G.R. No. 112090, October 26, 1999.
[32] In
case of explosives, the penalty is higher as provided in Section 3, R.A. 8294.
[33] People
v. Reynaldo Langit, G.R. No. 134757-58, August 4, 2000; People v.
Castillo, G.R. No. 131592, February 15, 2000.
[34] Section
16, R.A. 6425, as amended by B.P. Blg. 179.