32. PEOPLE VS.

TANGLIBEN This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41,
Third Judicial Region at San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 41, finding
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED appellant Medel Tangliben y Bernardino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
People vs. Tangliben violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of
G.R. No. 63630. April 6, 1990.* 1972 as amended) and sentencing him to life imprisonment, to pay a fine
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MEDEL TANGLIBEN Y of P20,000 and to pay the costs.
BERNARDINO, defendant-appellant. The information filed against the appellant alleged:
Dangerous Drugs Act; Criminal Procedure; Arrest; Lawful arrest “That on or about the 2nd day of March, 1982, in the municipality of San
without warrant.—Accused was caught in flagrante, since he was carrying Fernando, Province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
marijuana at the time of his arrest. This case therefore falls squarely within this Honorable Court, the above-named accused MEDEL TANGLIBEN y
the exception. The warrantless search was incident to a lawful arrest and is BERNARDINO, knowing fully well that Marijuana is a prohibited drug, did
consequently valid. then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession,
Same; Same; Non-presentation of the informer, not fatal to control and custody one (1) bag of dried marijuana leaves with an
prosecution’s case.—In attacking the sufficiency of evidence, the appellant approximate weight of one (1) kilo and to transport (sic) the same to
avers that the informer should have been presented before the lower Olongapo City, without authority of law to do so.” (At p. 6, Rollo)
court. We discard this argument as a futile attempt to revive an already The prosecution’s evidence upon which the finding of guilt beyond
settled issue. This Court has ruled in several cases that non-presentation of reasonable doubt was based is narrated by the trial court as follows:
the informer, where his testimony would be merely corroborative or “It appears from the evidence presented by the prosecution that in the late
cumulative, is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. (People v. Asio, G.R. No. evening of March 2, 1982, Patrolmen Silverio Quevedo and Romeo L.
84960, September 1, 1989; People v. Viola, G.R. No. 64262, March 16, Punzalan of the San Fernando Police Station, together with Barangay
1989; People v. Capulong, 160 SCRA 533 [1988]; People v. Cerelegia, 147 Tanod Macario Sacdalan, were conducting surveillance mission at the
SCRA 538). Victory Liner Terminal compound located at Barangay San Nicolas, San
Same; Same; Same; Findings of the trial court on the issue of Fernando, Pampanga; that the surveillance mission was aimed not only
credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and accorded the against persons who may commit misdemeanors at the said place but also
highest consideration by the appellate court.—As to doubtfulness of on persons who may be engaging in the traffic of dangerous drugs based
evidence, well-settled is the rule that findings of the trial court on the issue on informations supplied by informers; that it was around 9:30 in the
of credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great evening that said Patrolmen noticed a person carrying a red traveling bag
respect and accorded the highest consideration by the appellate court. (Exhibit G) who was acting suspiciously and they confronted him; that the
Since credibility is a matter that is peculiarly within the province of the trial person was requested by Patrolmen Quevedo and Punzalan to open the
judge, who had first hand opportunity to watch and observe the demeanor red traveling bag but the person refused, only to accede later on when the
and behavior of witnesses both for the prosecution and the defense at the patrolmen identi-
time of their testimony. 222
Same; Same; Same; Appellant’s having jumped bail is akin to flight 222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
tending to establish guilt.—Moreover, the appellant’s having jumped bail is People vs. Tangliben
akin to flight which, as correctly observed by the lower court, is an added fied themselves; that found inside the bag were marijuana leaves (Exhibit
circumstance tending to establish his guilt. B) wrapped in a plastic wrapper and weighing one kilo, more or less; that
APPEAL from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, the person was asked of his name and the reason why he was at the said
Pampanga, Br. 41. place and he gave his name as Medel Tangliben and explained that he was
waiting for a ride to Olongapo City to deliver the marijuana leaves; that the
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. accused was taken to the police headquarters at San Fernando, Pampanga,
________________ for further investigation; and that Pat. Silverio Quevedo submitted to his
Station Commander his Investigator’s Report (Exhibit F).
* THIRD DIVISION. It appears also from the prosecution’s evidence that in the following
221 morning or on March 3, 1982, Pat. Silverio Quevedo asked his co-
VOL. 184, APRIL 6, 1990 221 policeman Pat. Roberto Quevedo, who happens to be his brother and who
People vs. Tangliben has had special training on narcotics, to conduct a field test on a little
     The Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. portion of the marijuana leaves and to have the remaining portion
     Katz N. Tierra for defendant-appellant. examined by the PCCL at Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga; that Pat.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: Roberto Quevedo conducted a field test (Exhibit H) on the marijuana
leaves and found positive result for marijuana (Exhibit E); that the
Page 1 of 4
remaining bigger quantity of the marijuana leaves were taken to the PCCL The Solicitor-General likewise filed his brief, basically reiterating the lower
at Camp Olivas by Pat. Roberto Quevedo that same day of March 3, 1982 court’s findings.
(Exhibit A and A-1) and when examined, the same were also found to be However, before this Court had the chance to act on appeal, counsel de
marijuana (Exhibit C and C-1).” (At pp. 9-10, Rollo) oficio Atty. Enrique Chan died. Thereafter, this court appointed a new
Only the accused testified in his defense. His testimony is narrated by the counsel de oficio, Atty. Katz Tierra, and pursuant thereto, the Deputy Clerk
trial court as follows: of Court, in behalf of the Clerk of Court, required the new counsel to file
“The accused declared that he got married on October 25, 1981 and his her appellant’s brief. The latter complied and, in her brief, raised the
wife begot a child on June 10, 1982; that he was formerly employed in the following assignment of errors:
poultry farm of his uncle Alejandro Caluma in Antipolo, Rizal; that he is 224
engaged in the business of selling poultry medicine and feeds, including 224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
chicks, and used to conduct his business at Taytay, Rizal; that he goes to People vs. Tangliben
Subic at times in connection with his business and whenever he is in Subic, I
he used to buy C-rations from one Nena Ballon and dispose the same in
Manila; that he never left his residence at Antipolo, Rizal, on March 2, “THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING AS EVIDENCE THE PACKAGE OF
1982; that on March 3, 1982, he went to Subic to collect a balance of MARIJUANA ALLEGEDLY SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AS IT WAS A
P100.00 from a customer thereat and to buy C-rations; that he was able to PRODUCT OF AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT.
meet Nena Ballon at 6:00 o’clock in the evening and he stayed in Nena’s II
house up to 8:00 o’clock because he had a drinking spree with Nena’s son;
that he tried to catch the 8:00 o’clock trip to Manila from Olongapo City but
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING AS EVIDENCE THE ALLEGED
he failed and was able to take the bus only by 9:00 o’clock that evening;
PACKAGE OF MARIJUANA LEAVES AS THE LEAVES SUPPOSEDLY SEIZED
that it was a Victory Liner Bus that he rode and because he was tipsy, he
FROM ACCUSED WHEN IT WAS NEVER AUTHENTICATED.
did not notice that the bus was only bound for San Fernando
III
223
VOL. 184, APRIL 6, 1990 223
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE PROSECUTION
People vs. Tangliben
FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.” (At pp. 92-93,
Pampanga; that upon alighting at the Victory Liner Compound at San Rollo)
Fernando, Pampanga he crossed the street to wait for a bus going to It is contended that the marijuana allegedly seized from the accused was a
Manila; that while thus waiting for a bus, a man whom he came to know product of an unlawful search without a warrant and is therefore
later as Pat. Punzalan, approached him and asked him if he has any inadmissible in evidence.
residence certificate; that when he took out his wallet, Pat. Punzalan got This contention is devoid of merit.
the wallet and took all the money inside the wallet amounting to P545.00; One of the exceptions to the general rule requiring a search warrant is
that Pat. Punzalan told him that he’ll be taken to the municipal building for a search incident to a lawful arrest. Thus, Section 12 of Rule 126 of the
verification as he may be an NPA member; that at the municipal building, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
he saw a policeman, identified by him later as Pat. Silverio Quevedo, “Section 12. Search incident to a lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested
sleeping but was awakened when he arrived; that Pat. Quevedo took him may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used
upstairs and told him to take out everything from his pocket saying that as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.”
the prisoners inside the jail may get the same from him; that inside his Meanwhile, Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) provides:
pocket was a fifty-peso bill and Pat. Quevedo took the same, telling him “x x x A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
that it shall be returned to him but that it was never returned to him; that person:
he was thereafter placed under detention and somebody told him that he (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
is being charged with possession of marijuana and if he would like to be actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.”
bailed out, somebody is willing to help him; and, that when he was visited Accused was caught in flagrante, since he was carrying mari-
by his wife, he told his wife that Patrolman Silverio Quevedo took away all
225
his money but he told his wife not to complain anymore as it would be
VOL. 184, APRIL 6, 1990 225
useless.” (Rollo, pp. 10-11)
People vs. Tangliben
Appellant, through counsel de oficio Atty. Enrique Chan, raised the lone
assignment of error in his appeal: juana at the time of his arrest. This case therefore falls squarely within the
“THE COURT A-QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND exception. The warrantless search was incident to a lawful arrest and is
FINDING HIM GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED ON INSUFFICIENT AND consequently valid.
DOUBTFUL EVIDENCE.” (At p. 48, Rollo) In the case of People v. Claudio, 160 SCRA 646, [1988] this Court,
confronted with the same issue, held that:
Page 2 of 4
“Appellant Claudio was caught transporting prohibited drugs. Pat. Daniel letter-request bore the name of the accused, then the requirements of
did not need a warrant to arrest Claudio as the latter was caught in proper authentication of evidence were sufficiently complied with. The
flagrante delicto. The warrantless search being an incident to a lawful marijuana package examined by the forensic chemist was satisfactorily
arrest is in itself lawful. (Nolasco v. Paño, 147 SCRA 509). Therefore, there identified as the one seized from accused.
was no infirmity in the seizure of the 1.1 kilos of marijuana.” Even assuming arguendo that the marijuana sent to the PC Crime
We are not unmindful of the decision of this Court in People v. Laboratory was not properly authenticated, still, we cannot discount the
Aminnudin, 163 SCRA 402 [1988]. In that case the PC officers had earlier separate field test conducted by witness Roberto Quevedo which yielded
received a tip from an informer that accused-appellant was on board a positive results for marijuana.
vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. Acting on this tip, Lastly, the appellant claims that the evidence upon which he was
they waited for him one evening, approached him as he descended from convicted was insufficient and doubtful and that the prosecution failed to
the gangplank, detained him and inspected the bag he was carrying. Said prove his guilt.
bag contained marijuana leaves. The Court held that the marijuana could In attacking the sufficiency of evidence, the appellant avers that the
not be admitted in evidence since it was seized illegally. informer should have been presented before the lower court. We discard
The records show, however, that there were certain facts, not existing this argument as a futile attempt to revive an already settled issue. This
in the case before us, which led the Court to declare the seizure as invalid. Court has ruled in several cases that non-presentation of the informer,
As stated therein: where his testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative, is not
“The present case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting fatal to the prosecution’s case. (People v. Asio, G.R. No. 84960, September
declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days 1, 1989;
within which they could have obtained a warrant of arrest and search 227
Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was VOL. 184, APRIL 6, 1990 227
known. The vehicle was identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And People vs. Tangliben
from the information they had received, they could have persuaded a People v. Viola, G.R. No. 64262, March 16, 1989; People v. Capulong, 160
judge that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a SCRA 533 [1988]; People v. Cerelegia, 147 SCRA 538).
warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law. As to doubtfulness of evidence, well-settled is the rule that findings of
The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who the trial court on the issue of credibility of witnesses and their testimonies
was the head of the arresting team, had determined on his own authority are entitled to great respect and accorded the highest consideration by the
that a ‘search warrant was not necessary.’ ” appellate court. Since credibility is a matter that is peculiarly within the
In contrast, the case before us presented urgency. Although the trial province of the trial judge, who had first hand opportunity to watch and
court’s decision did not mention it, the transcript of observe the demeanor and behavior of witnesses both for the prosecution
226 and the defense at the time of their testimony (People v. Tejada, G.R. No.
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 81520, February 21, 1989; People v. Turla, 167 SCRA 278), we find no
People vs. Tangliben reason to disturb the following findings:
stenographic notes reveals that there was an informer who pointed to the “The testimony of prosecution witnesses Patrolmen Silverio Quevedo and
accused-appellant as carrying marijuana. (TSN, pp. 52-53) Faced with such Romeo Punzalan are positive and sufficiently clear to show the commission
on-the-spot information, the police officers had to act quickly. There was by the accused of the offense herein charged. These prosecution witnesses
not enough time to secure a search warrant. We cannot therefore apply have no motive to fabricate the facts and to foist a very serious offense
the ruling in Aminnudin to the case at bar. To require search warrants against the accused. The knowledge on what these witnesses testified to
during on-the-spot apprehensions of drug pushers, illegal possessors of were (sic) acquired by them in the official performance of their duties and
firearms, jueteng collectors, smugglers of contraband goods, robbers, etc. their (sic) being no showing that they are prejudiced against the accused,
would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to contain the crimes their testimonies deserve full credit.
with which these persons are associated. The testimonies of the afore-mentioned patrolmen that what they found
Accused-appellant likewise asserts that the package of marijuana in the possession of the accused were marijuana leaves were corroborated
leaves supposedly seized from him was never authenticated and therefore by the examination findings conducted by Pat. Roberto Quevedo (Exhibit
should not have been admitted as evidence. He capitalizes on the fact that H) and by Forensic Chemist Marlene Salangad of the PCCL, with station at
the marijuana package brought by Patrolman Roberto Quevedo to the PC Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga (Exhibits C and C-1). (Rollo, p. 11)
Crime Laboratory for examination did not contain a tag bearing the name “Moreover, if there is truth in the testimony of the accused to the effect
of the accused. We rule, however, that since Patrolman Quevedo testified that Pat. Punzalan got all the money from his wallet when he was accosted
that he gave the marijuana package together with a letter-request for at the Victory Liner Terminal and was told just to keep quiet, otherwise he
examination, and the forensic chemist Marilene Salangad likewise testified will be ‘salvaged’, why will Pat. Punzalan still bring the accused to the
that she received the marijuana together with the letter-request and said Municipal Building for interrogation and/or verification? Would not Pat.
Page 3 of 4
Punzalan be exposing his identity to the accused? This is unnatural. And VOL. 184, APRIL 6, 1990 229
this is also true on the testimony of the accused that Pat. Silverio Quevedo People vs. Tangliben
got his fifty-peso bill and never returned the same to him. If the two tion failed to prove that before Duero made his alleged oral confession he
policemen really got any money from the accused and that the marijuana was informed of his rights to remain silent and to have counsel and
leaves do not belong to the accused, why will the two policemen still because there is no proof that he knowingly and intelligently waived those
produce in Court as evidence that expensive-looking traveling red bag rights, his confession is inadmissible in evidence. This ruling was reiterated
(Exhibit G) taken from the accused and which contained the marijuana in People v. Tolentino, 145 SCRA 597 [1986], where the Court added that:
leaves in question if the “In effect, the Court not only abrogated the rule on presumption of
228 regularity of official acts relative to admissibility of statements taken
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED during in-custody interrogation but likewise dispelled any doubt as to the
People vs. Tangliben full adoption of the Miranda doctrine in this jurisdiction. It is now incumbent
instant case is a mere fabrication? upon the prosecution to prove during a trial that prior to questioning, the
As already stated, all the evidence, oral and documentary, presented confessant was warned of his constitutionally protected rights.”
by the prosecution in this case were all based on personal knowledge The trial judge likewise found the marijuana to weigh one kilo, more or
acquired by the prosecution witnesses in the regular performance of their less, and from this finding extracted a clear intent to transport the
official duties and there is nothing in their testimonies to show that they marijuana leaves. It may be pointed out, however, that although the
are bias (sic) or that they have any prejudice against the herein accused. information stated the weight to be approximately one kilo, the forensic
Between the testimonies of these prosecution witnesses and that of the chemist who examined the marijuana leaves testified that the marijuana
uncorroborated and self-serving testimony of the accused, the former weighed only 600 grams. Such amount is not a considerable quantity as to
should prevail.” (Rollo, p. 13) conclusively confer upon the accused an intent to transport the marijuana
Likewise, the appellant chose to limit his defense to his own testimony. He leaves.
could have availed himself through compulsory court processes of several Nor can it be said that the intent to transport is clearly established from
witnesses to buttress his defense. Since not one other witness was the fact that the accused was arrested at San Fernando, Pampanga, a
presented nor was any justification for the non-appearance given, the place which is not his residence. Conviction of a crime with an extremely
inadequacy of his lone and uncorroborated testimony remains. It cannot severe penalty must be based on evidence which is clearer and more
prevail vis-a-vis the positive testimonies given by the prosecution convincing than the inferences in this case.
witnesses. What was therefore proved beyond reasonable doubt is not his intent to
Moreover, the appellant’s having jumped bail is akin to flight which, as transport the marijuana leaves but his actual possession.
correctly observed by the lower court, is an added circumstance tending to The offense committed by the appellant is possession of marijuana
establish his guilt. under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as
We take exception, however, to the trial court’s finding that: amended).
“The dried marijuana leaves found in the possession of the accused weighs WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction by the trial court is hereby
one (1) kilo, more or less. The intent to transport the same is clear from AFFIRMED but MODIFIED. The appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty
the testimony of Pat. Silverio Quevedo who declared, among other things, of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
that when he confronted the accused that night, the latter told him that he years and fine of Six Thousand (P6,000.00) Pesos.
(accused) is bringing the marijuana leaves to Olongapo City. Moreover, 230
considering the quantity of the marijuana leaves found in the possession of 230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the accused and the place he was arrested which is at San Fernando, Lansang, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
Pampanga, a place where the accused is not residing, it can be said that SO ORDERED.
the intent to transport the marijuana leaves has been clearly established.”      Fernan (C.J., Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin and Cortés, JJ., concur.
(Rollo, pp. 13-14) Judgment affirmed but modified.
The alleged extrajudicial confession of the accused which, on the other Note.—Failure of fiscal to present testimony of NARCOM informer is not
hand, he categorically denied in court, that he is transporting the fatal. (People vs. Cerelegia, 147 SCRA 528.)
marijuana leaves to Olongapo City cannot be relied upon. Even assuming it ——o0o——
to be true, the extrajudicial confession cannot be admitted because it does
not appear in the records that the accused, during custodial investigation, © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
was apprised of his rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be
informed of such rights. In People v. Duero, 104 SCRA 379 [1981], the
Court pronounced that “inasmuch as the prosecu-
229
Page 4 of 4