PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FERDINAND CURA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Cura

The Case

This is People versus Cura, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Ferdinand Cura for illegal possession of a dangerous drug under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a clean teaching vehicle for the validity of a warrantless arrest and a warrantless seizure under the plain view doctrine, and for the rule that possession of a dangerous drug may be constructive, not only actual. Second, it is a reminder that the penalty clause of a special penal law must be imposed as written, and that the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies even to crimes that are wrong merely because the law says so.

Procedural History

Cura was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City, Branch 64, with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165. When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty. At pre-trial, the parties stipulated only on his identity, and trial followed. On January 19, 2004, the trial court rendered its decision convicting him and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal as minimum to twenty years as maximum, plus a fine of 300,000 pesos. Cura appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the trial court's crediting of the prosecution witnesses and its finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was resolved by the Supreme Court through a decision penned by Justice Peralta, with Justices De Los Santos and Dimaranan-Vidal concurring.

Facts

On the afternoon of June 6, 2003, police officers and barangay officials were conducting surveillance in Barangay Amacalan, Gerona, Tarlac, in response to reports of rampant illegal drug activity. During the surveillance, a member of the barangay peacekeeping group reported a suspicious man, and the police arrested one Joey Austria for illegal possession of shabu. The group then continued its surveillance and reached the house of the accused.

There, the police officer SPO1 Romeo Milla saw Cura playing cards at a table outside his house, and saw him place something under the linoleum cover of the table. The officer told the barangay chairman, Jeremias Ermitanio, what he had witnessed. The chairman confiscated the cards and the bet money, then lifted the cover of the table. Two heat-sealed plastic sachets containing a crystalline substance fell from it.

The items were turned over to the chief investigator of the Gerona Police Station and submitted to Camp Olivas in San Fernando, Pampanga for examination. A forensic chemist found that the contents of the second sachet were methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, weighing 0.055 gram, a regulated drug. The other sachet contained tawas. Cura was arrested, and an information was filed charging him with illegal possession of shabu without the corresponding license or prescription.

Issues

• Whether or not the warrantless arrest of the accused and the warrantless seizure of the shabu were lawful.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

Applicable Provisions

Section 11 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, as quoted in the decision, provides:

SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. – 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 possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof: xxx xxx xxx Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows: xxx xxx xxx (3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methylamphetamine hydcrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs xxx.

This is the very provision under which Cura was charged, and its third paragraph fixes both the range of imprisonment and the range of the fine for possession of less than five grams of shabu.

Section 5, paragraph a, of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as discussed in the decision, provides:

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — (a) A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (1) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; xxx

This is the provision that makes the warrantless arrest lawful, because the officer saw Cura in the very act of hiding the drug.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the warrantless arrest and seizure were valid. Under Section 5, paragraph a, of Rule 113, a person may be lawfully arrested even without a warrant when he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The Court found that Cura was actually committing a crime when the officer saw him placing the shabu under the cover of the table. The seizure, in turn, fell under the plain view doctrine, which the Court described in these terms:

Under the "plain view" doctrine, unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence. Nonetheless, the seizure of evidence in plain view must comply with the following requirements: (a) a prior valid intrusion in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) the plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.

The Court found all four elements present. It added that Cura could no longer assail his warrantless arrest, because any objection to the arrest or to the acquisition of jurisdiction over his person must be raised before he enters his plea; by pleading not guilty and actively participating in the trial, he waived the objection.

On the second issue, the Court upheld the trial court. The testimonies of the police officer and the barangay chairman deserved weight and credence, there being no showing of ill motive to testify falsely. The Court stressed the settled rule that in dangerous drugs cases, credence is given to the testimonies of police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, absent evidence of ill motive or deviation. The Court also held that the shabu need not have been recovered from Cura's physical possession, because possession need not be exclusive and may be inferred from the circumstances. Since the evidence showed that Cura placed the sachet under the table cover, the drug was under his constructive possession and control. The Court quoted the elements of the crime:

The essential elements of the crime of possession of regulated drugs are the following: (a) the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and, (c) the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug. This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element.

The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies concerned only minor and collateral matters, such as whether Cura was playing cards or pool and how many persons were playing with him, and did not touch the gravamen of the charge. The defense of frame-up was rejected as easily concocted and difficult to prove, especially since Cura filed no complaint against the arresting officers. As between the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and Cura's bare denial, the positive assertion prevailed. Finally, the Court corrected the penalty. The trial court had wrongly labeled the prison term as reclusion temporal, but a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act is a special law that provides its own penalties, so the term of twelve years and one day should not be termed reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which is mandatory for both crimes wrong in themselves and crimes wrong only because the law says so, the Court fixed the indeterminate sentence at twelve years and one day as minimum to fifteen years as maximum.

Doctrine

A warrantless arrest is lawful when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer. A warrantless seizure is valid under the plain view doctrine when there is a prior valid intrusion, the evidence was inadvertently discovered by an officer with the right to be where he is, the evidence is immediately apparent, and the plain view justified mere seizure without further search. Any objection to the illegality of an arrest or a search must be raised before the accused enters his plea; otherwise, it is deemed waived. In prosecutions for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are possession of the drug, lack of authority, and knowledge that the drug is regulated; the crime is wrong merely because the law says so, so criminal intent is not essential, but intent to possess must be shown. Possession includes constructive possession, which exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found, and exclusive possession is not required. The penalty clause of a special penal law must be imposed as written, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Disposition

The appeal was denied and the conviction was affirmed, but the imprisonment was modified to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day as minimum to fifteen years as maximum, with the trial court's decision affirmed in all other respects.

Remember This

Memorize this line: possession of a dangerous drug may be constructive, and a warrantless seizure is valid under the plain view doctrine when the officer sees the contraband in the course of a lawful intrusion. Examiners use this case to test the plain view doctrine, the waiver of objections to an illegal arrest, constructive possession, and the correct application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law to a special penal law.