PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAVIER MORILLA Y AVELLANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Morilla

The Case

People versus Morilla is a criminal appeal in which the accused, Javier Morilla, was charged with the illegal transport of a regulated drug, methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, after police at a checkpoint in Real, Quezon discovered more than five hundred kilos of the drug in the ambulance he was driving. He was convicted by the trial court and the conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The case matters for two reasons. First, it teaches how conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence, and how a defect in an information is waived if not raised in a motion to quash. Second, it clarifies the distinction between life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua, and the retroactive application of a lighter penalty under the dangerous drugs law.

Procedural History

Morilla, together with Ronnie Mitra, Willie Yang, and Ruel Dequilla, was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City with the illegal transport of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The case had been transferred from Quezon to Quezon City upon the request of the Chief State Prosecutor, granted by the Supreme Court, because of the large quantity of the confiscated drugs. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Morilla and Mitra of illegal transport and sentenced each to life imprisonment and a fine of ten million pesos. It acquitted Yang and Dequilla for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Morilla appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision in full. The case then reached the Supreme Court by appeal, and the Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.

Facts

On the thirteenth of October, 2001, two vehicles left Infanta, Quezon, bound for Manila. The first was a Starex van driven by Ronnie Mitra, the incumbent mayor of Panukulan, Quezon. The second was a municipal ambulance driven by Javier Morilla. Both vehicles were loaded with several sacks. At a checkpoint set up by police officers in Real, Quezon, the Starex van was allowed to pass. When the ambulance reached the checkpoint, a police officer noticed the sacks through the untinted window. Asked what the sacks contained, Morilla answered that they held narra wooden tiles.

Unconvinced, the officers asked Morilla to open the rear door. White crystalline granules were scattered on the floor, and when the sacks were opened, they were found to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride. At that point, Morilla told the officers that he was with Mayor Mitra, apparently to persuade them to let him pass. The officers rejected the request and chased the Starex van. When they overtook it, they saw that it too was loaded with similar sacks, which likewise contained methamphetamine hydrochloride. Mayor Mitra offered to settle the matter, but the offer was rejected.

At trial, Morilla claimed he had no knowledge of the illegal contents and that he was merely obeying the instruction of his superior, Mayor Mitra, believing he was transporting wooden tiles and electronic spare parts. Mayor Mitra claimed he was merely asked to transport the sacks to Manila by a certain Ben Tan. The trial court rejected both defenses, finding that the two had been caught in the act of transporting the drugs, and that the totality of the circumstances showed a conspiracy between them. Yang and Dequilla, mere passengers, were acquitted.

Issues

• Whether or not Morilla may be convicted of conspiracy to commit the offense charged even though conspiracy was not expressly alleged in the Information.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved his culpability as alleged in the Information.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, paragraph b of Rule 115 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

This is the right Morilla invoked when he argued that the Information failed to state the word conspiracy.

Section 9 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. — The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule.

This provision supplies the reason the Court deemed Morilla's objection to the Information waived.

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code defines the felony of conspiracy:

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

This definition anchors the Court's finding that Morilla and Mayor Mitra shared a common design to transport the drugs.

Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, provides:

The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug.

This is the provision under which the Court corrected the penalty imposed by the lower courts.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that even assuming the Information was defective for failing to allege conspiracy expressly, the defect was deemed waived. Morilla did not raise it as a ground in a motion to quash before entering his plea, and he in fact participated in the trial and presented his defenses against the allegation of conspiracy. His failure to assert the right within a reasonable time raised the presumption that he had abandoned it.

On the second issue, the Court upheld the finding of conspiracy. It ruled that the parties need not be shown to have come together and agreed in express terms. The assent of the minds may be inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together, indicate that they are parts of some complete whole. Here, both vehicles loaded with sacks of drugs were on convoy from Quezon to Manila. Mayor Mitra passed the checkpoint first, and when Morilla was stopped, he told the officers that he was with the mayor. The Court also rejected his claim of lack of knowledge, holding that the very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum prohibitum, an act wrong in itself because it is punished by a special law, and the fact of transportation need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive, or knowledge.

On the penalty, the Court noted that the original penalty under Republic Act No. 6425 was imprisonment of six years and one day to twelve years. Presidential Decree No. 1683 changed it to life imprisonment to death, and Republic Act No. 7659 changed it to reclusion perpetua to death with a fine of five hundred thousand to ten million pesos. Applying the rule that a criminal statute favorable to the accused has retroactive effect, and that reclusion perpetua is lighter than life imprisonment, the Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua while sustaining the fine of ten million pesos for each accused.

Doctrine

Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of an express agreement. It may be inferred from the acts and circumstances of the accused which, taken together, show a common design to commit a felony, as defined in Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code. Any defect in the Information, such as the failure to allege conspiracy, is waived if not raised in a motion to quash before the plea, under Section 9 of Rule 117. Illegal transport of dangerous drugs is malum prohibitum, so the prosecution need only prove the act of carrying or conveying the drug from one place to another, without proof of criminal intent, motive, or knowledge. Finally, reclusion perpetua is a lighter penalty than life imprisonment, and a favorable penal law is applied retroactively to the accused.

Disposition

The Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction of Morilla, but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua instead of life imprisonment, with a fine of ten million pesos for each accused.

Remember This

Remember that conspiracy may be inferred from circumstantial facts showing a common design, and that transporting dangerous drugs is malum prohibitum, requiring no proof of intent or knowledge. Examiners like to use this case on the waiver of defects in the Information and on the distinction between reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment.