PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALVARO SAYCON Y BUQUIRAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Alvaro Saycon was charged with violating Section 15, Article III of
R.A. No. 6425 as amended, the Dangerous Drugs Act, in an information which read
as follows:

“That on or about the 8th day of July 1992, in the City of
Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did, then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, deliver and transport[–] from Manila to
Dumaguete City approximately 4 grams of methamphetam[ine] hydrochloride
commonly known as ‘shabu,’ a regulated drug.

Contrary to Sec. 15, Art. III of R.A. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act) as
amended.”^[1]
(Brackets supplied)

At arraignment, Alvaro Saycon entered a plea of not guilty.

After trial, the trial court rendered, on 15 June 1993, a
judgment of conviction. The court found
Saycon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having transported four (4) grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu“) and sentenced him to
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00.^[2]

The relevant facts as found by the trial court were gleaned from
the testimonies of the arresting officers Senior Police Officers Winifredo S.
Noble and Ruben Laddaran of the Narcotics Command, PNP; Police Officer
Emmanuelito C. Lajot of the Philippine Coastguard Office in Dumaguete City; and
Forensic Analyst N.G. Salinas of the PNP Crime Laboratory. The trial court summarized the facts in the
following manner:

“x x x that on or about 8 July 1992, at about 6:00 in the
morning, the Coastguard personnel received information from NARCOM agent Ruben
Laddaran that a suspected “shabu” courier by the name of
Alvaro Saycon was on board the MV Doña Virginia, which was arriving at
that moment in Dumaguete City. Upon
receipt of the information, the Coastguard chief officer CPO Tolin, instructed
them to intercept the suspect. A combined
team of NARCOM agents and Philippine Coastguard personnel consisting of CPO
Tolin, a certain Miagme, and Senior Police Officers Ruben Laddaran and
Winifredo Noble of NARCOM posted themselves at the gate of Pier 1.

The MV Doña Virginia docked at 6:00 a.m. that same morning
at Pier 1 in Dumaguete City. Alvaro
Saycon alighted from the boat carrying a black bag and went through the
checkpoint manned by the Philippine Coastguard where he was identified by
police officer Winifredo Noble of NARCOM. Saycon was then invited to the Coastguard Headquarters at the Pier
area. He willingly went with them. At the headquarters, the coastguard asked
Saycon to open his bag, and the latter willingly obliged. In it were personal belongings and a maong
wallet. Inside that maong
wallet, there was a Marlboro pack containing the suspected “shabu“. When police officer Winifredo Noble asked
Saycon whether the Marlboro pack containing the suspected “shabu”
was his, Saycon merely bowed his head. Then Saycon, his bag and the suspected “shabu” were
brought to the NARCOM office for booking. When Alvaro Saycon was arrested, the NARCOM agents did not have a
warrant of arrest.”^[3]

After the arrest of Saycon, the suspected drug material taken
from him was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Cebu City for chemical
examination.

The PNP’s Forensic Analyst declared in court that she had
conducted an examination of the specimens which had been taken from appellant
Saycon and submitted to the Crime Laboratory on 9 July 1992. Her findings were, basically, that the
specimens she examined weighing 4.2 grams in total, consisted of the regulated
drug methamphetamine hydrochloride, more widely known as “shabu.”^[4]

For his part, appellant Saycon denied ownership of the “shabu”
taken from his black bag. He claimed
that upon disembarking from the ship at the pier in Dumaguete City, he was met
by two (2) unfamiliar persons who snatched his bag from him. Thereafter, he was taken to the office of
the port collector, at gunpoint, and there his bag was searched by four (4) men
despite his protests. The four (4)
persons were later identified by appellant Saycon as Noble, Sixto, Edjec and
Ruben Laddaran. When appellant Saycon
asked why his belongings were being searched, the four (4) answered that there
was “shabu” inside his bag. After the search of his bag, appellant continued, he was shown a small
wallet purportedly taken from his black bag which contained “shabu.”
Appellant Saycon was then detained at the Dumaguete City Jail.^[5]

In his appeal before this Court seeking reversal of the decision
of the court a quo finding him guilty of the crime charged, Saycon
contends that the search of his bag was illegal because it had been made
without a search warrant and that, therefore, the “shabu”
discovered during the illegal search was inadmissible in evidence against him.

It is not disputed that the arresting officers were not armed
with a search warrant or a warrant of arrest when they searched Saycon’s bag
and thereafter effected his arrest.

The relevant constitutional provisions are set out in Sections 2
and 3 [2], Article III of the 1987 Constitution which read as follows:

“Sec. 2. The right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall
be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness as he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized.

Sec. 3. x x x

(2) Any evidence
obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.”

The general rule, therefore, is that the
search and seizure must be carried out through or with a judicial warrant;
otherwise, such search and seizure becomes “unreasonable” within the
meaning of the above constitutional provisions.^[6] The
evidence secured in the process of search and seizure — i.e., the
“fruits” thereof — will be inadmissible in evidence “for any
purpose in any proceeding.”^[7]

The requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained prior to
the carrying out of a search and seizure is, however, not absolute. “There are certain exceptions
recognized in our law,” the Court noted in People v. Barros.^[8]
The exception which appears most pertinent in respect of the case at bar is
that relating to the search of moving vehicles.^[9] In People
v. Barros, the Court said:

“Peace officers may lawfully conduct searches of moving
vehicles — automobiles, trucks, etc. — without need of a warrant, it not
being practicable to secure a judicial warrant before searching a vehicle,
since such vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in
which the warrant may be sought. (People v. Bagista, supra; People v. Lo Ho Wing, supra) In carrying out warrantless searches of
moving vehicles, however, peace officers are limited to routine checks, that
is, the vehicles are neither really searched nor their occupants subjected to
physical or body searches, the examination of the vehicles being limited to
visual inspection. In Valmonte v. De
Villa (178 SCRA 211 [1989]), the Court stated:

‘[N]ot all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not
forbidden. A reasonable search is not
to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the
facts of each case.

Where, for example, the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a
vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds, or simply looks into
a vehicle, or flashes a light therein, these do not constitute unreasonable
search.’ (Citations omitted)

When, however, a vehicle is stopped and subjected
to an extensive search, such a warrantless search would be constitutionally
permissible only if the officers conducting the search have reasonable or
probable cause to believe, before the search, that either the motorist is a
law-offender or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been
instruments or the subject matter or the proceeds of some criminal
offense. (People v. Bagista, supra;
Valmonte v. de Villa, 185 SCRA 665 [1990]).

While the analogy is perhaps not perfect, we consider that
appellant Saycon stands in the same situation as the driver or passenger of a
motor vehicle that is stopped by police authorities and subjected to an
extensive search. In this situation,
the warrantless search and arrest of appellant Saycon would be constitutionally
permissible only if the officer conducting the search had reasonable or
probable cause to believe, before the search, that Saycon who had just
disembarked from the MV Doña Virginia upon arrival of that vessel at
6:00 a.m. of 8 July 1992 at Pier I of Dumaguete city, was violating some law or
that the contents of his luggage included some instrument or the subject matter
or the proceeds of some criminal offense.

It is important to note that unlike in the case of crimes like,
e.g., homicide, murder, physical injuries, robbery or rape which by their
nature involve physical, optically perceptible, overt acts, the offense of
possessing or delivering or transporting some prohibited or regulated drug is
customarily carried out without any external signs or indicia visible to police
officers and the rest of the outside world. Drug “pushers” or couriers do not customarily go about their
enterprise or trade with some external visible sign advertising the fact that
they are carrying or distributing or transporting prohibited drugs. Thus, the application of the rules in
Section 5 (a) and (b), Rule 133 of the Rules of Court needs to take that
circumstance into account. The Court has
had to resolve the question of valid or invalid warrantless arrest or warrantless
search or seizure in such cases by determining the presence or absence of a
reasonable or probable cause, before the search and arrest, that led the police
authorities to believe that such a felony (possessing or transporting or
delivering prohibited drugs) was then in progress. In Barros, the Court listed the kinds of causes which have
been characterized as probable or reasonable cause supporting the legality and
validity of a warrantless search and a warrantless arrest in cases of this
type:

“This Court has in the past found probable cause to conduct
without a judicial warrant an extensive search of moving vehicles in situations
where (1) there had emanated from a package the distinctive smell of marijuana
(People v. Claudio, 160 SCRA 646 [1988]); (2) agents of the Narcotics Command
(“Narcom”) of the Philippine National Police (“PNP”) had
received a confidential report from informers that a sizeable volume of
marijuana would be transported along the route where the search was conducted
(People v. Maspil, 188 SCRA 751 [1990]); (3) Narcom agents were informed or
“tipped off” by an undercover “deep penetration” agent that
prohibited drugs would be brought into the country on a particular airline
flight on a given date (People v. Lo Ho Wing, supra); (4) Narcom agents had
received information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada, Mountain Province,
had in his possession prohibited drugs and when the Narcom agents confronted
the accused Caucasian, because of a conspicuous bulge in his waistline, he
failed to present his passport and other identification papers when requested
to do so (People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401 [1991]); and (5) Narcom agents had
received confidential information that a woman having the same physical
appearance as that of the accused would be transporting marijuana (People v.
Bagista, supra.).”

Close examination of the record of the case at bar shows that
there did exist reasonable or probable cause to believe that appellant Alvaro
Saycon would be carrying or transporting prohibited drugs upon arriving in
Dumaguete City on the MV Doña Virginia on 8 July 1992. This probable cause in fact consisted of two
(2) parts. Firstly, Senior Police
Officer Winifredo Noble had testified in court that the NARCOM Agents had, approximately
three (3) weeks before 8 July 1992, conducted a test-buy which confirmed that
appellant Saycon was indeed engaged in transporting and selling “shabu.”
The police authorities did not, on that occasion, arrest Alvaro Saycon, but
what should be noted is that the identity of Saycon as a drug courier or drug
distributor was established in the minds of the police authorities.^[10]
Secondly, the arresting officers testified that they had received confidential
information that very early morning of 8 July 1992, Alvaro Saycon would probably
be on board the MV Doña Virginia which was scheduled to arrive in
Dumaguete City at 6:00 a.m. on 8 July 1992, probably carrying “shabu”
with him.

In respect of the first element of the probable cause here
involved, the testimony of Police Officer Winifredo Noble had not been denied
or rebutted by the defense; as it happened, Officer Noble was not even
cross-examined on this point by defense counsel.

In respect of the second element of the probable cause here
involved, appellant Saycon contended that the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses showed that the NARCOM Agents knew three (3) weeks before 8 July 1992
that the MV Doña Virginia would be arriving and that he would
probably be on board that vessel. It was
argued by Saycon that the police authorities should have procured, and had the
time to procure, the necessary judicial warrants for search and arrest. Saycon also sought to underscore a supposed
confusion in the testimonies of NARCOM Officer Winifredo Noble and Coastguard
Officer Lajot relating to who, as between the NARCOM agent and the Coastguard
elements, had informed the other that appellant would probably be arriving on
board the MV Doña Virginia. The
relevant portion of NARCOM Agent Winifredo Noble’s testimony includes the
following:

“Q:  Despite
the lapse of three (3) weeks, more or less, from acquiring knowledge through
this informant, did you not secure the necessary search warrant and warrant of
arrest on the effect(s) and person of the subject Alvaro Saycon?

A:    All
the time we were only informed by the Coastguard that this certain fellow in
the name of Alvaro Saycon is travelling through and through from Manila to
Dumaguete will be carrying shabu from Manila to Dumaguete and we could not
ascertain (with) the time when he will be at the pier area.

Q:   You
have not answered my question. My
question is: Despite the lapse of
more than three (3) weeks upon being informed by your informer that this Alvaro
Saycon, the accused in this case, has been a courier from time to time
of prohibited drugs, did you not bother to secure the necessary warrant: search
as well as the arrest?

A:    As
I said earlier, we could not obtain the necessary search warrant to that
effect because we do not know or ascertain when Alvaro Saycon will arrive
[from] Manila. On that particular
morning, we were informed by the Coastguard that Doña Virginia would be
arriving and they told us that probably this suspect will be among the
passengers, so you better come over and (to) identify the subject.”^[11](Emphases
supplied)

Upon the other hand, Coastguard Police
Officer Emmanuelito Lajot, Jr. testified in the following way:

“Q:  What
time were you in your office?

A:    Before
6:00 o’clock, I was there.

x x x  x x x           x x x

Q:   While
you were there, did you receive any communication?

A:    Yes.

Q:   What
communication was that?

A:    That
a certain Alvaro Saycon was on board MV Doña Virginia arriving at 6:00 o’clock
in the morning?

Q:   Who
gave you that information?

A:    Ruben
Laddaran(a).

Q:   Who
is this Ruben Laddaran?

A:    NARCOM
Agent.”^[12]
(Emphases supplied)

If there was any confusion or uncertainty
in the testimonies of NARCOM Officer Noble and Coastguard Officer Lajot, that
confusion was a minor detail. It was in
any case clarified by NARCOM Officer Noble’s explanation that after the NARCOM
Command had received information appellant Saycon would be transporting drugs
from Manila to Dumaguete City, they advised the Coastguard that they (the
Narcotics Command) wanted to set up a checkpoint at Pier I at Dumaguete City
because appellant Saycon could be on board one of the vessels arriving in
Dumaguete City. The Coastguard in turn
informed the NARCOM Officers of the arrival of the MV Doña Virginia and
assisted the NARCOM Officers in their operation that morning of 8 July 1992.

The record shows that the NARCOM Officers were uncertain as to
the precise date and time appellant Saycon would arrive from Manila; all they
knew was that Saycon would be taking a boat from Manila to Dumaguete City Pier.^[13]
The MV Doña Virginia docked at the Port of Pier I of Dumaguete City
between 6:00 and 6:30 in the morning of 8 July 1992. Earlier on that same morning, the NARCOM Officers received more
specific information that appellant Saycon could be on board the MV Doña
Virginia which was arriving that morning.^[14]
Clearly, the NARCOM Agents had to act quickly but there was not enough time to
obtain a search warrant or a warrant of arrest. It was realistically not possible for either the NARCOM Agents or
the Coastguard Officers to obtain a judicial search warrant or warrant of
arrest in the situation presented by the case at bar.^[15]

The Court considers, therefore, that a valid warrantless search
had been conducted by the NARCOM and Coastguard Officers of the “black
bag” of appellant Saycon that morning of 8 July 1992 at the checkpoint
nearby the docking place of the MV Doña Virginia and at the office of
the Coastguard at Dumaguete City. It
follows that the warrantless arrest of appellant Saycon which ensued forthwith,
was also valid and lawful, since the police had determined he was in fact
carrying or transporting “shabu.” The further consequence is
that the four (4) grams of “shabu” obtained from his maong
wallet found inside his black bag was lawfully before the court a quo. We agree with the court a quo that
the evidence before the latter proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant
Saycon had been carrying with him “shabu” at the time of his
search and arrest and his guilt of the offense charged was established beyond
reasonable doubt.

In view of the foregoing, the decision of the trial court dated
15 June 1993, in Criminal Case No. 10325, should be affirmed, but the penalty
properly imposable upon appellant Alvaro Saycon must be reduced to imprisonment
for an indeterminate period ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor
as minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional as maximum, and the
fine of P20,000.00 must be deleted. This reduction of penalty is required by the provisions of Section 20,
Article IV of R.A. No. 6425, as last amended by Section 17, of R.A. No. 7659
(effective 13 December 1993), as construed and given retroactive effect in People
v. Martin Simon (G.R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994) considering that the amount
of “shabu” here involved (four [4] grams) is obviously less
than the 200 grams of “shabu” cut-off quantity established in
the amended Section 20 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the decision
of the trial court in Criminal Case No. 10325, is hereby AFFIRMED, with the
MODIFICATIONS, however, that appellant shall suffer imprisonment for an
indeterminate period ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor as
minimum to six (6) years prision correccional as maximum, and that the
fine of P20,000.00 shall be DELETED. No
pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Romero, Melo, and Vitug,
JJ., concur.

Bidin, J., on leave.

^[1]
RTC Decision, p. 1; Rollo p. 26

^[2]
RTC Decision, p. 6; Rollo p. 36.

^[3]
RTC Decision pp. 2-4; Rollo pp. 32-34.

^[4]
TSN, Testimony of Mutchit Salinas, 8 February 1993, pp. 8-9.

^[5]
RTC Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 35.

^[6]
Pita v. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 362 (1989).

^[7]
People v. Zapanta, 195 SCRA 200
(1991); People v. Dendana, 190
SCRA 538 (1990); People v. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA 402 (1988).

^[8]
G.R. No. 90640, 29 March 1994.

^[9]
See People v. Bagista, 214 SCRA 63 (1992); People v. Rodriguez,
205 SCRA 791 (1992); People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122 (1991); Manipon v.
Sandiganbayan, 143 SCRA 267(1986).

^[10]
TSN, Testimony of SPO1 Winifredo Noble, 14 December 1992, pp. 20-21.

^[11]
TSN, 14 December 1992, pp. 15-16.

^[12]
TSN, 15 December 1992, p. 5.

^[13]
TSN, Testimony of SPO2 Ruben Laddaran, 14 December 1992, p. 24.

^[14]
TSN, Testimony of SPO1 Winifredo Noble, 14 December 1992, pp. 15-17; Appellee’s
Brief, p. 3.

^[15]
This particular factor serves to distinguish the case of People v. Aminnudin,
163 SCRA 402 (1988), from the case at bar; see in this connection, People v.
Maspil, 188 SCRA 751 at 762 (1990). See also People v. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220 at 225-226
(1990).

In Aminnudin, Mr. Justice
Cruz stressed that the police authorities had received the “tip” from
“a reliable and regular informer” that Aminnudin would be arriving in
Iloilo City by boat with marijuana. The
testimony of the prosecution witnesses had varied in respect of the time that
they had received that “tip:” one stated that it was received two (2)
days before the arrest; another “two (2) weeks;” and a third
“weeks before June 25.” (People v. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA at
406). Cruz, J., said:

“The present
case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting declarations of the PC
witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two weeks within which they
could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming to
Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name
was known. The vehicle was
identified. The date of its arrival was
certain. And from the
information they had received, they could have persuaded a judge
that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a
warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to comply with the
law. The Bill of Rights was ignored
altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team,
had determined on his own authority that a ‘search warrant was not necessary.’
(Emphases supplied; 163 SCRA at 409)