PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ROBERT
FIGUEROA and BEATRICE VALERIO, accused.
ROBERT FIGUEROA, accused-appellant.

DECISION
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:

Accused-appellant ROBERT FIGUEROA (hereafter OBET) appeals

from the 18 May 1998 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque
[1]

City, Branch 259, in Criminal Case No. 97-306, convicting him of

violation of Section 14-A , Article III of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known
[2]

as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by RA. No. 7659. His
co-accused Beatrice Valerio (hereafter Betty) was acquitted.
OBET and Betty were indicted under an information, dated 2 April
1997, whose accusatory portion reads as follows:

That on 16 February 1997 and for sometime prior thereto in Paraaque City
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
without authority of law, conspiring, confederating and helping one another,
did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously manufacture, produce,
prepare or process methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated
drug amounting to a 2.4 liters, directly by means of chemical synthesis.

CONTRARY TO LAW. [3]

When arraigned OBET and Betty each entered a plea of not

guilty. Trial on the merits then ensued.
[4]

The witnesses presented by the prosecution were NBI

Forensic Chemist Mary Ann T. Aranas, NBI Special Investigator III Pio
M. Palencia (hereafter PALENCIA), and NBI Intelligence Agent II Martin
Soriano (hereafter SORIANO).
PALENCIA testified that on 15 February 1997, he was in the office
of SORIANO at Project 6, Quezon City, when they received a call from
their informant, a woman, who reported that a certain OBET was
allegedly engaged in large-scale drug trafficking in Makati City.
PALENCIA and SORIANO forthwith instructed their informant to
establish contact with OBET for a buy-bust operation. After several
hours, the informant reported that OBET was already waiting for her at
No. 1485 Soliman Street, Makati City, with instructions for her to come
alone as soon as she was ready with P150,000. PALENCIA then caused
the dusting of fluorescent powder over ten pieces of authentic P100 bills
as buy-bust money and gave them to the informant. [5]

On board a taxi, PALENCIA, SORIANO and their informant

proceeded to the rendezvous area. They arrived at half past twelve
o'clock in the early morning of 16 February 1997. As the gate was
already open, the informant entered the premises, while PALENCIA and
SORIANO discreetly crawled and positioned themselves near the gate
of the house. Strategically positioned, PALENCIA overheard OBET ask
the informant whether she had the money. PALENCIA then saw the
informant hand over the money to OBET. While counting the money,
OBET sensed the presence of other people in the area. OBET, who was
in possession of a .45 caliber pistol, fired it twice toward the direction of
PALENCIA, while hurrying towards the house. OBET then held hostage
his mistress, Estrella Brilliantes, and her two children for the next three
hours until the arrival of one Major Roberto Reyes to whom OBET
surrendered. PALENCIA and SORIANO brought OBET, his firearm and
the recovered buy-bust money to the WPD Headquarters for recording
purposes and, thereafter, to the NBI Headquarters. [6]

At the NBI Headquarters, PALENCIA and SORIANO methodically

interrogated OBET about the source of his shabu. OBET eventually
volunteered that his source was a certain Betty of 263 El Grande Street,
B.F. Homes, Paraaque City. PALENCIA and SORIANO took OBET to
Betty's house as a follow-up operation. They arrived at around 6:00 a.m.
of the same day, 16 February 1997. As OBET called Betty earlier to tell
her that he was arriving, Betty already had the gate opened for them.
After parking, PALENCIA saw Betty waiting for them. Upon seeing
OBET in handcuffs, Betty asked what happened. OBET replied that he
was just caught in a buy-bust operation. PALENCIA and SORIANO then
tried to convince Betty to surrender the shabu that OBET insisted was
hidden inside the house. As Betty persistently denied the existence of
the shabu, PALENCIA told OBET to confer with Betty. After a while,
OBET proceeded to the kitchen of the guesthouse located outside the
main house, followed by Betty. OBET then promptly pointed to what he
termed as liquid shabu inside a white pail along with other drug
paraphernalia, such as a beaker spray. PALENCIA and
SORIANO seized the items. [7]

Thereafter, PALENCIA requested a laboratory examination of all the

seized items and an ultraviolet light examination over the persons of
OBET, Betty and a certain Eva Baluyot. PALENCIA claimed that based
[8]
on the certification issued by the Forensic Chemistry Division of the NBI,
all the items seized from Betty's residence were positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride except specimen no.7; while from
among the persons subjected to ultraviolet light examination, only OBET
was found positive for fluorescent powder. [9]

On cross-examination, PALENCIA admitted that he and SORIANO

conducted the search without a search warrant, but with the consent of
Betty. He also admitted that he did not actually see OBET or Betty in
[10]

the act of manufacturing shabu. [11]

NBI Intelligence Agent II SORIANO corroborated PALENCIA's

testimony. He likewise admitted that the custodial investigation of OBET,
during which he divulged Betty as the source of shabu, was conducted
in the absence of any counsel. SORIANO also confirmed PALENCIA's
testimony that they were not armed with a search warrant, but that they
conducted the follow-up operation at Betty's house under the hot pursuit
theory. He further maintained that OBET, after conferring with Betty,
[12]

uttered, Ako na nga, ako na nga"(I will do it, I will do it). OBET then
proceeded to the dirty kitchen, pointed to the refrigerator and had it
moved. Thereafter, SORIANO saw a plastic pail containing liquid with
floating brown substances.
SORIANO admitted that he and PALENCIA neither witnessed OBET
and Betty manufacture shabu in the manner described in Section 2(j) of
the Dangerous Drugs Act ; nor did they possess evidence, independent
[13]

of the items they had seized, that OBET and Betty were engaged in the
labeling or manufacturing of shabu. [14]

Forensic Chemist Mary Ann T. Aranas testified that on 16 February

1997, she conducted a laboratory examination for the presence of any
prohibited or regulated drug on eleven different specimens (Exhibits "B"-
"L"). The result of the examination disclosed that all the specimens
[15]

except specimen no. 7 (Exhibit "H") were positive for methamphetamine

hydrochloride. She further observed that specimen no. 8 (Exhibit I- I-
[16]

2), the brown liquid with floating solid flakes contained in a plastic pail,
was positive for epedrine, a substance used in the manufacture of
[17]

methamphetamine hydrochloride. She opined that this crude form of

shabu would have to undergo chemical processes, like extraction,
crystallization, distillation, before it could be finally converted into
shabu's crystalline form. She also conducted a fluorescent powder
examination over the persons of OBET and Betty. Only OBET gave a
positive result. [18]
 On the other hand, OBET testified that while he was watching
television on the night of 15 February 1997, he heard the doorbell rang.
Upon seeing Eva Baluyot, his childhood friend, he opened the door for
her. Inside the house, Eva handed him a bundle of money and stated
that she was buying shabu from him. OBET emphatically told Eva that
he was not engaged in such illegal trade and returned the money. OBET
then accompanied Eva out of the house. At the garage, OBET noticed
someone peeping from the dark; so he told Eva to go back inside the
house with him. Eva ignored the request. OBET thus left Eva at the
garage and got his .45 caliber gun from his house. While he was locking
the door, his handgun accidentally fired off, as he forgot that it had
already been cocked. This blast was followed by shouts of people
outside claiming that they were NBI men. Uncertain, OBET did not go
out of the house but instead told the alleged NBI men to call the Makati
Police, specifically Major Reyes. The NBI agents, however, persisted in
convincing OBET to go out of the house. He did get out of his house
after three hours when he heard the voice of Major Reyes. OBET gave
to Major Reyes his gun. The Makati Police and the NBI men thereafter
conducted a joint search inside OBET's house which, however, yielded
nothing. OBET was then brought to the Makati Police Headquarters
where the incident was recorded. Thereafter, PALENCIA, SORIANO
and another NBI man brought OBET to the house of Betty, his former
live-in partner, at El Grande Street, B.F. Homes, Paraaque City, upon
the insistence and information of Eva Baluyot. [19]

Upon entering B.F. Homes, SORIANO instructed OBET to call and

tell Betty that he was already near. The gate was already opened when
they arrived, and the NBI men freely parked their car at the garage.
Then, PALENCIA and SORIANO alighted from the car and entered
Betty's house. OBET was left in the car under the charge of the third NBI
man; hence, he knew nothing of what happened inside Betty's house. [20]

For her part, Betty admitted that she was romantically involved with
OBET and had a child by him. She recalled that on 16 February 1997,
OBET called at around 6:00 a.m. and requested her to open the gate for
him, as he was already near. She ran down to the garage and opened
the gate. Since her car was parked halfway through the garage, she
went to the main house to get her car keys to make way for OBET's car.
But as she came out of the main house, OBET's car was already parked
inside the garage. She noticed that OBET had two companions with long
firearms. The two, whom Betty later found out as NBI men PALENCIA
and SORIANO, informed her that they had just come from a buy-bust
 operation and that OBET had led them to her house, as there were
illegal chemicals kept in the premises. Shocked andamazed, she then
asked for a search warrant, but the NBI men could not produce any. [21]

Betty further recalled that the NBI men claimed that they found
contraband items near the dirty kitchen at a small space behind
the refrigerator where cases of softdrinks were stored. Betty denied any
knowledge that there were illegal chemicals inside her house and that
these were manufactured into shabu. She also denied knowing Eva
Baluyot. [22]

On cross-examination, Betty disclaimed her alleged consent to the

search of her house, for she specifically asked the NBI men for a search
warrant. She asserted that she did not see the NBI men find the shabu
paraphernalia because she went up to the second floor of her house.
She only saw that the NBI men were bringing several items out of her
house. [23]

The trial court agreed with the prosecution's theory that the
warrantless arrests of OBET and Betty were conducted within the
purview of valid warrantless arrests enumerated in Section 5, Rule
[24]

113 of the Rules of Court. It then ruled as valid the consented

warrantless search conducted at the house of Betty. Consequently, it
found that the very items seized by the NBI agents at the kitchen of
Betty's guesthouse were admissible as the corpus delicti of the
violation of Section 14-A of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Thus, the trial
court "believed" that the paraphernalia seized were indispensable to
the processing or manufacturing of shabu into crystallized form.
Although it conceded that the prosecution witnesses did not actually
see the crystallization processes, the trial court observed that the
Dangerous Drug Act does not require that there be actual
manufacturing activities at the time of the seizure.
The trial court, however, acquitted Betty for failure of the prosecution
to adduce evidence that she, in conspiracy with OBET, manufactured
shabu without the requisite authority. It did not arrive at a similar
conclusion as far as OBET was concerned, but declared that based on
the evidence on record, OBET's guilt of the crime charged was proved
beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, in the decision of 18 May 1998 the trial
court decreed as follows:

WHEREFORE, finding the evidence insufficient to warrant the conviction of

accused Beatrice Valerio y del Rosario for Violation of Sec. 14-a of Article III
of R.A. 6425 as amended by R.A. 7659, this court pronounces her NOT
GUILTY and considering that she is detained at the NBI the NBI is directed to
immediately release her from custody unless there be some reasons for her
detention. Finding, however, accused Robert Figueroa GUILTY as charged
[of] the same offense in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances, this Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of
Reclusion Perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and to suffer the
accessory penalties provided by law, specifically Art. VI [sic] of the Revised
Penal Code.

The Clerk of Court is directed to prepare the Mittimus for the immediate
transfer of Robert Figueroa to the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City.

SO ORDERED.

Unsatisfied with the verdict, OBET appealed the decision to us. He

principally premises his prayer for acquittal on the failure of the State to
show by convincing evidence that shortly prior to or during custodial
investigation, he was apprised of his constitutional rights to remain
silent, to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his
own choice, and to be informed of such rights. He asserts that he did
not waive those rights. Thus, whatever admissions were allegedly
extracted from him are inadmissible in evidence. Even assuming that his
extrajudicial statements were admissible, Betty's acquittal would work in
his favor because the indictment is based on conspiracy. In a
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Therefore, the acts imputed
to him were also the acts of Betty, and vice versa. Since the trial court
considered insufficient for conviction the acts of Betty, then he, too,
should be acquitted.
In the Appellee's Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
maintains that not all warrantless searches and seizures are illegal. For
one, a warrantless search and seizure is not unreasonable and offensive
to the Constitution if consent is shown. In this case, the prosecution
convincingly proved that Betty consented to the search of her house.
With her consent, Betty validly waived her constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizure. Consequently, the items seized in
her house by virtue of the consented search are admissible in evidence
against her and OBET.
The OSG also contends that the acquittal of Betty does not per
se work to absolve OBET of the crime charged. Betty's believable
disavowal of the location of the paraphernalia and other circumstances
on record reasonably indicative of her innocence cannot redound in
favor of OBET. The latter apparently knew the exact location of the
hidden paraphernalia. By such disclosure, it is not far-fetched to
conclude that OBET had been actually engaged in the manufacture of
shabu.
We first resolve the question of whether Betty's acquittal would
benefit OBET.
We disagree with the theory of OBET that in an indictment based on
conspiracy, the acquittal of a conspirator likewise absolves a co-
conspirator from criminal liability. Indeed, the rule is well-settled that
once a conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all, and
each of the conspirators is liable for the crimes committed by the other
conspirators.