PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.TAN YIN CHO AND MIU MAN KA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Tan versus Cho

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Tan Yin Cho and Miu Man Ka, a criminal appeal from a conviction for transporting a regulated drug. Two Chinese nationals were charged with delivering and transporting a very large quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly called shabu, without authority of law. The case matters because it is a compact laboratory on three recurring Bar topics: the lawfulness of a warrantless arrest and a warrantless search of a motor vehicle, the distinction between life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua, and the nature of illegal possession of drugs as a crime of mala prohibita, where criminal intent is not an element but intent to possess must still be shown.

Procedural History

The accused were arraigned before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 102, Quezon City, and both pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court rendered its decision on July 24, 2002, finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and a fine of 500,000 pesos, with deportation after service of sentence. The accused moved for reconsideration; the trial court denied the motion. They then filed a notice of appeal, and the records were transmitted to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and ordered the appellants to file their brief. Later, conformably with its ruling in People versus Mateo, the Supreme Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction, modifying only the penalty to life imprisonment. The case now comes before us on that appeal.

Facts

On August 2, 1996, Police Superintendent Raul Castañeda instructed officers of the Narcotics Intelligence and Suppression Unit to monitor the accused and confirm information that they were engaged in the traffic of illegal drugs. The next morning, at around four o'clock, the police followed the accused from a hotel in Ermita, Manila, as they boarded a green Nissan Sentra and drove toward Quezon City. Along Quezon Avenue, the accused's car bumped the left rear portion of the car driven by Police Senior Inspector David Noora. Instead of stopping, the accused sped away, prompting a chase.

The accused parked near a restaurant on Timog Avenue and transferred to a white Nissan Sentra parked about one hundred meters away. The police blocked both cars. The officers approached the accused, introduced themselves, and confronted them about the bumping. A body search on Miu Man Ka yielded the key to the green Nissan Sentra. When the trunk was opened, the police found six traveling bags containing plastic packs of white crystalline substance. The substance was brought to the crime laboratory and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Only Tan Yin Cho testified for the defense. He denied knowledge of the drugs and claimed that he and his companion had come to the Philippines as tourists, traveling to Baguio City and Pampanga before staying at a hotel in Manila, and that they were arrested, blindfolded, and brought to Camp Crame.

Issues

• Whether or not the warrantless arrest and the warrantless search of the vehicle were unreasonable and tainted by the exclusionary rule, rendering the seized shabu inadmissible.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused and in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine.
• Whether or not the accused were in possession of the 92,677.80 grams of shabu, given the prosecution's alleged failure to prove intent to possess.

Applicable Provisions

Section 55 of Republic Act No. 4136, the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, provides:

Section 55. Duty of driver in case of accident. In the event that any accident should occur as a result of the operation of a motor vehicle upon a highway, the driver shall stop immediately, and, if requested by any person present, shall show his driver's license, give his true name and address and also the true name and address of the owner of the motor vehicle.

This is the traffic violation the accused committed in the presence of the police, which justified their apprehension.

Section 13, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.

This is the authority for the frisk of the accused and the search of the vehicle as an incident to a lawful arrest.

Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1683, provides:

The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any persons who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug.

This is the penal provision under which the accused were convicted and sentenced.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the arrest was lawful. The accused had just violated traffic law by sideswiping the car of Inspector Noora and speeding away, an offense committed in the presence of the police officers. Their attempt to change cars gave the officers probable cause to believe they were committing something wrong, justifying the blocking of their path. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in Padilla versus Court of Appeals:

It is appropriate to state at this juncture that a suspect, like petitioner herein, cannot defeat the arrest which has been set in motion in a public place for want of a warrant as the police was confronted by an urgent need to render aid or take action.

The Court added that the authority to search a motor vehicle is broader than the authority to search a home, store, or office, because a vehicle can be quickly moved and the expectation of privacy in it is significantly less. The shabu was therefore lawfully recovered and admissible. The Court also held that the accused waived any objection to the illegality of their arrest by pleading not guilty, failing to quash the information, participating in trial, and filing bail.

On the third issue, the Court held that illegal possession of drugs is mala prohibita, so criminal intent is not an element, but the prosecution must still prove intent to possess, or animus possidendi. Possession may be actual or constructive. The accused were in actual possession of the green Nissan Sentra, as shown by the lease in favor of Miu Man Ka, and had knowledge of the shabu inside the car under their control and dominion.

On the second issue, the Court corrected the penalty. Since Republic Act No. 6425 is a special law, the proper penalty is life imprisonment, not reclusion perpetua. The Court distinguished the two, quoting People versus Bautista:

While life imprisonment may appear to be the English translation of reclusion perpetua, in reality, it goes deeper than that.

Doctrine

• A warrantless arrest is lawful when the accused commits an offense in the presence of the police, as when the driver violates the duty to stop after an accident under Section 55 of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code.
• A search incident to a lawful arrest, under Section 13, Rule 126, extends to the vehicle used by the accused, and the authority to search a motor vehicle is broader than that for a home or office.
• Any objection to the illegality of an arrest must be raised before arraignment; otherwise, it is waived.
• Illegal possession of drugs is mala prohibita; criminal intent is not required, but animus possidendi must be proved, and possession may be actual or constructive.
• Under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the penalty for transporting a regulated drug is life imprisonment, not reclusion perpetua, because the offense is punished by a special law.

Disposition

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction, modifying the penalty to life imprisonment instead of reclusion perpetua, and ordered the forfeiture of the seized shabu in favor of the government.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a traffic violation committed in the presence of police justifies a warrantless arrest, and the search of the vehicle as an incident to that arrest is lawful. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua, and the mala prohibita nature of illegal drug possession.