People v. Correa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants Antonio Correa, Rito Gunida, and Leonardo Dulay were charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, for allegedly delivering and transporting approximately 16 kilograms of dried marijuana flowering tops. The prosecution presented evidence that a police team, acting on a tip, surveilled Leonardo Dulay and subsequently intercepted the appellants in an owner-type jeep at Bambang Extension corner Jose Abad Santos Avenue, Tondo, Manila. A tin can in the vehicle contained eight bundles of marijuana. The appellants claimed they were arrested in Camarin, Caloocan City, while on their way to the hospital with a sick child, and denied possession of illegal drugs. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, found the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the penalty of death and a fine of P10,000,000.00. The court considered the use of a motor vehicle as an aggravating circumstance. The Petition: The appellants appealed the decision, raising issues regarding the legality of the arrest and search, the admissibility of the confiscated evidence, the credibility of the sole prosecution witness, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in taking cognizance of the case, alleging the arrest occurred outside its territorial jurisdiction; and whether the seized marijuana was admissible as evidence, being the fruit of an illegal search conducted without a warrant. Whether the trial court erred in basing its conviction solely on the uncorroborated testimony of SPO3 Jesus Faller; and whether the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the use of a motor vehicle in transporting prohibited drugs constitutes an aggravating circumstance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Regional Trial Court. While affirming the conviction, it set aside the death penalty and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Court ruled that the use of a motor vehicle in transporting prohibited drugs is inherent in the crime and not an aggravating circumstance. The fine of P10,000,000.00 was affirmed. The confiscation and forfeiture of the marijuana and the vehicle in favor of the government were also affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the territorial jurisdiction and legality of arrest/search; and admissibility of evidence: The Court found the appellants' claim that they were arrested in Caloocan City to be unsubstantiated and contradicted by documentary evidence (Booking Sheets and Arrest Reports) showing their custody in Manila from early morning of the arrest. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellants voluntarily submitted to the search by not protesting when the police opened the tin can containing the marijuana. Their participation in the trial after arraignment also constituted a waiver of any objection to the search and seizure. The Court ruled that the seized marijuana was admissible because the appellants voluntarily submitted to the search and seizure by not protesting when the police opened the tin can. Moreover, their voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court, including entering a plea of not guilty and participating in the trial, constituted an effective waiver of their constitutional right against warrantless search and seizure. The Court found that the established circumstances, including the simultaneous apprehension, traveling together in a vehicle, the time of the arrest, the concealment of the drugs in a tin can, and the quantity of marijuana, sufficiently demonstrated conspiracy among the three accused to commit the offense of delivery and transportation of prohibited drugs. On the credibility of SPO3 Jesus Faller and sufficiency of evidence: The Court gave full faith and credence to the testimony of SPO3 Jesus Faller, the primary prosecution witness. It noted that the appellants failed to present any evidence of ill-motive or inconsistency in Faller's testimony. The Court reiterated that the testimony of a single credible witness is sufficient for conviction and that the non-presentation of other witnesses does not necessarily create an unfavorable presumption, especially when their testimonies would be merely corroborative. The defense of alibi was found weak and uncorroborated, with significant discrepancies in the testimonies of defense witnesses regarding the alleged hospital visit. On the use of a motor vehicle as an aggravating circumstance: The Court held that the use of a motor vehicle in the transportation of prohibited drugs is inherent in the crime itself and not an aggravating circumstance. It explained that the act of transporting, as defined under Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425, necessarily involves conveyance, making the use of a vehicle merely incidental. Therefore, it cannot be appreciated to increase the penalty from reclusion perpetua to death, as it is either included in the definition of the crime or is an inherent part of the commission thereof, falling under Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code.
Main Doctrine
The use of a motor vehicle in the transportation of prohibited drugs is inherent in the crime itself and does not constitute an aggravating circumstance, as it is merely incidental to the act of transporting. Consequently, the penalty for transporting more than 750 grams of marijuana should be reclusion perpetua, not death.