PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO T. LABANDELO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Labandelo

The Case

This is People versus Labandelo, a criminal appeal in which the State sought to sustain the conviction of Rolando T. Labandelo for transporting dangerous drugs under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Labandelo was the driver of a van found loaded with sixty boxes of shabu inside a warehouse at the Subic Bay Freeport. The case matters because the Supreme Court draws a line between possession and transportation of dangerous drugs, and holds that even in a special law, knowledge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Procedural History

Two informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 75. The first charged illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165. The second charged the transport, distribution and delivery of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of the same law. The two cases were consolidated and heard together, and the accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.

The trial court acquitted both accused of illegal possession, finding that the prosecution failed to prove knowledge of the contents of the boxes. In the transport case, however, the trial court convicted Labandelo, reasoning that transporting dangerous drugs is a malum prohibitum, a wrong prohibited by the special law regardless of intent, so that the mere act of conveying the drugs is punishable and the defense of lack of knowledge is unavailing.

Labandelo appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the disregard of his claim of innocence, the illegality of his warrantless arrest and search, the violation of his rights during investigation, and the prosecution's non-compliance with the inventory and chain of custody requirements of the drug law.

Facts

On the evening of May 25, 2008, security officers of the Subic Bay Freeport noticed a red vehicle being loaded with boxes from a docked vessel at the Riviera Pier. When the vehicle was flagged down, eight boxes covered with pink trash bags were found inside. The driver, Anton Ang, could not show documents for the cargo. He was allowed to fetch papers from his office but never returned. The boxes were later opened and found to contain plastic bags of white crystalline substance.

On the morning of May 28, 2008, two green leather bags containing packs of the same substance were found floating near the dry dock. Later that morning, authorities received a report of a van parked at a warehouse managed by Enrique Ong. Ong said the van had been sent by Hualong. Inspection of the van yielded sixty boxes containing green leather bags with packs of white crystalline substance. The driver, Rolando Labandelo, whose identification card was found hanging inside the van, was brought for investigation. Forensic examination confirmed that the specimens were methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Labandelo testified that he was an accredited transport operator inside the freeport, that Anthony Ang frequently rented his van, and that on May 26, 2008 Ang hired the van to transport boxes. He loaded the boxes with Ang's brother-in-law, waited at a gas station, and when nobody came, parked the van inside the Anglo Asia warehouse as instructed. He was paid twenty one thousand pesos for the use of the van and went home. On May 28, he was summoned by the authorities and went with them to the warehouse.

Issues

• Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure of the van and its contents was valid.
• Whether or not the accused may be convicted of transporting dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act 9165 despite the trial court's finding that he had no knowledge of the contents of the boxes.
• Whether or not the accused was, at the time of his apprehension, actually transporting or moving the dangerous drugs.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 provides:

Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

This is the provision under which the accused was convicted, and the Court reads its list of punishable acts as cognate or related acts carrying the same penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the search and seizure was valid even without a warrant. It recognized the exception for searches made on automobiles or motor vehicles generally for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration laws. The authorities had reasonable ground to suspect contraband inside the van because from the outside they could see boxes similar to those earlier confiscated, and there was a time constraint, since the vehicle could be driven out at any time while a warrant was being secured.

On the second issue, the Court disagreed with the trial court. The acts punishable under Section 5 are selling, trading, administering, dispensing, delivering, giving away to another, distributing, dispatching in transit or transporting dangerous drugs, and these are cognate or related acts meted the same penalty. But the Court stressed that the Constitution protects the accused against unreasonable intrusion by the State, that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Since the trial court acquitted the accused of illegal possession for lack of proof of knowledge, he must also be acquitted of transporting dangerous drugs for the same lack of knowledge. Both offenses are punishable under the same law, and the corpus delicti of both is the same 612.22 kilograms of shabu.

The Court explained that knowledge is a mental state of awareness of a fact, and that animus possidendi, the intent to possess, may be inferred from the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused and the surrounding circumstances. The accused was a legitimate transport operator accredited by the freeport, and his act of leaving his identification card inside the van laden with drugs, and of readily going to the warehouse when summoned, supported his claim of innocence. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew the boxes contained dangerous drugs.

On the third issue, the Court applied its ruling in San Juan versus People, where an accused sitting in a parked car was acquitted because there was no proof that at the time of apprehension he was moving the drugs a certain distance. Here, at the time of his apprehension, the accused was not transporting or moving the drugs; the van was merely parked inside the warehouse.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is valid when the authorities have reasonable ground to suspect that contraband is inside and there is a justifiable necessity to act immediately to prevent the vehicle from leaving. Second, in prosecutions under Republic Act 9165, even though the offense is a malum prohibitum, a wrong prohibited by the special law regardless of intent, knowledge must still be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Third, the defense of lack of knowledge available to illegal possession is equally available to transporting dangerous drugs, since both offenses are punishable under the same law and share the same corpus delicti. Fourth, in the crime of transporting dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove that the accused travelled a certain distance carrying the drugs at the time he was apprehended; mere presence beside a parked vehicle containing drugs is not transport.

Disposition

The appeal was granted; Rolando T. Labandelo was acquitted of violating Section 5 of Republic Act 9165, and his immediate release was ordered unless he is being held for another crime.

Remember This

Memorize this line: even in a malum prohibitum under the Dangerous Drugs Act, knowledge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and lack of knowledge that acquits of possession also acquits of transport. Examiners use this case to test the knowledge requirement in special laws and the distinction between possession and actual transporting of dangerous drugs.