PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MOISES MASPIL, JR. Y WAYWAY AND SALCEDO BAGKING Y ALTAKI, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

This petition is an appeal from the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 5, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds and declares the accused MOISES MASPIL,
JR. y WAYWAY and SALCEDO BAGKING y ALTAKI guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of illegal transportation of marijuana as charged and hereby sentences
EACH of them to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT; to pay a fine of P20,000.00, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay their proportionate
shares in the costs.

“The confiscated marijuana (Exhibits “B”, “B-1” to “B-23”; “C”,
“C-1” to “C-16, “D”, “D-1” to “D-20”; “E”, E-1”, to “E-14”; “F”, “F-1”; “G”,
“G-1”) are hereby declared forfeited in favor of the Government and upon the
finality of this decision, the Branch Clerk of Court is directed to turn over
the same to the Dangerous Drugs Board (NBI), through the Chief, PC Crime
Laboratory, Regional Unit No. 1, Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet, for
disposition in accordance with law.” (Rollo, pp. 25-26)

In Criminal Case No. 4263-R, the information filed against the
two accused alleged:

“That on or about the 1st day of November, 1986, at Sayangan,
Municipality of Atok, Province of Benguet, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually aiding each other, and without any authority of law,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly transport and carry in
transit from Sinto, Bauko, Mt. Province to Atok, Benguet One Hundred Eleven
Kilos and Nine Grams (111.9 kilos), more or less, of dried marijuana leaves
which are sources of dangerous and prohibited drugs and from which dangerous
and prohibited drugs may be derived and manufactured, in violation of the said
law.” (Rollo, p. 11)

The narration of facts by the trial court is as follows:

“According to Jerry Valeroso, Sgt. Amador Ablang and Sgt.
Florentino Baillo, all members of the First Narcotics Regional Unit of the
Narcotics Command stationed in Baguio City, (See also Exhibit “I”) on October
30, 1986, they established a checkpoint infront of the Municipal Hall at
Sayangan, Atok, Benguet, which is along the Halsema Highway, to check on
vehicles proceeding to Baguio City because their Commanding Officer, Maj.
Basilio Cablayan, had been earlier tipped off by some confidential informers
that the herein accused Maspil and Bagking would be transporting a large volume
of marijuana to Baguio City. The
informers went along with the operatives to Sayangan.

“At about 2:00 o’clock in the early morning of November 1, the
operatives intercepted a Sarao type jeep driven by Maspil with Bagking as his
companion. Upon inspection, the jeep
was found loaded with two (2) plastic sacks (Exhibits “B” and “D”), one (1)
jute sack (Exhibit “C”) and three (3) big round tin cans (Exhibits “E”, “F” and
“G”) which, when opened contained several bundles of suspected dried marijuana
leaves (Exhibits “B-1”, to “B-23”; “C-1”
to “C-16”; “D-1” to “D-20”; “E-1” to “E-14”; “F-1” and “G-1”).

“Maspil and Bagking were arrested and the suspected marijuana
leaves were confiscated.

“The confiscated items were later on referred to the PC Crime
Laboratory, Regional Unit I, for examination (Exhibit “A”). Forensic Chemist Carlos V. Figuerroa
performed the requested examination and determined that the specimen, with an
aggregate weight of 115.66 kilos, were positive to the standard tests for
marijuana.

“The accused admitted that the marijuana dried leaves were indeed
confiscated from the jeep being then driven by Maspil with Bagking as his
helper. However, they claimed that the
prohibited drugs belonged to two of their passengers who loaded them in the
jeep as paying cargo for Baguio City without the accused knowing that they were
marijuana.

“The accused declared that on October 31, 1986, at the burned area
along Lakandula Street, Baguio City, a certain Mrs. Luisa Mendoza hired the
jeep of Maspil to transport her stock of dried fish and canned goods contained
in cartons to Abatan, Buguias, Benguet, because her own vehicle broke
down. They left Baguio City at about
1:00 o’clock in the afternoon (11:30 in the morning, according to Bagking) with
Mrs. Mendoza, her helper and salesgirls on board the jeep with Maspil as driver
and Bagking as his own helper. They
arrived at Abatan at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening.

“After unloading their cargo, Maspil and Bagking repaired to a
restaurant for their dinner before undertaking the trip back to Baguio
City. While thus eating, they were
approached by two persons, one of whom they would learn later on to be a
certain Danny Buteng. Buteng inquired
if they were going to Baguio City and upon being given an affirmative answer,
he said that he would ride with them and that he has some cargo. Asked what the cargo was, Buteng replied
that they were flowers in closed tin cans and sealed sacks for the
commemoration of All Souls Day in Baguio City. After Buteng had agreed to Maspil’s condition that he would pay for the
space to be occupied by his cargo, Buteng himself and his companion loaded the
cargo and fixed them inside Maspil’s jeep.

“Maspil and Bagking left Abatan at about 7:00 o’clock that same
evening of October 31. Aside from
Buteng and companion they had four other passengers. These four other passengers alighted at Natubleng, Buguias,
Benguet.

“Upon reaching Sayangan, Atok, Benguet, Maspil stopped at the
Marosan Restaurant where they intended to take coffee. Their remaining passengers – Buteng and
companion – alighted and went to the restaurant. However, a soldier waved at Maspil to drive to where he was,
which Maspil did. The soldier secured
Maspil’s permission to inspect their cargo after which he grabbed Maspil on the
latter’s left shoulder and asked who owned the cargo. Maspil told the soldier that the cargo belonged to their
passengers who went to the restaurant. The soldier called for his companions and they went to look for Maspil’s
passengers in the restaurant. Later on,
they returned and placed Maspil and Bagking under arrest since their cargo
turned out to be marijuana.

“Lawrence Balonglong, alias Banawe, a radio reporter of DZWX Bombo
Radio who was invited by Lt. Valeroso to witness the operation, affirmed the
unsuccessful pursuit of the alleged two companions of Maspil and Bagking. He recalled that he was awakened from his
sleep at the townhall in Sayangan after the arrest of Maspil and Bagking. When he went to the scene, the NARCOM
operatives boarded the jeep of Maspil to chase the two companions of Maspil and
Bagking. Balonglong climbed on top of
the jeep with his camera to join the chase. They proceeded towards the direction of Bontoc but failed to catch
anyone. Hence, they returned.

“Thereupon, Maspil and Bagking were taken to the townhall where
they were allegedly maltreated to admit ownership of the confiscated
marijuana. At about 4:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of November 1, the soldiers took them away from Sayangan to be
transferred to their station at Baguio City. On their way, particularly at Km. 32 or 34, they met Mike Maspil, an
elder brother of Moises Maspil, and the soldiers called for him and then Lt.
Valeroso and his men mauled him on the road.

“Mike testified that between 3:00 and 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon
of November 1, he was informed by a neighbor that his brother Moises was
detained at the Atok Municipal Jail. So
he called for Jose Pos-el and James Longages, his driver and helper,
respectively, to go along with him to see Moises. They rode in his jeep. On
the way, they met the group of Lt. Valeroso. For no apparent reason, Lt. Valeroso boxed and kicked him several
times. Thereafter, Lt. Valeroso placed
him under arrest together with his driver and helper. They were all brought to a shoe store on Gen. Luna Road, Baguio
City, together with Moises and Bagking. There, Lt. Valeroso got his wallet containing P210.00 and Seiko wrist
watch but the receipt (Exhibit “3”) was issued by a certain Miss Pingil, a
companion of Valeroso. He was released
after nine days. He then went to Lt.
Valeroso to claim his wallet, money and watch but he was told that they were
with Miss Pingil. However, when he went
to Miss Pingil, the latter said that the items were with Lt. Valeroso. He sought the assistance of then Tourism
Deputy Minister Honorato Aquino who assigned a lawyer to assist him. The lawyer advised him to file a case against
Lt. Valeroso but because of the intervening congressional elections, the matter
has never been pursued.” (Rollo, p. 21-24)

The appellants raise the following assignment of errors in their
appeal, to wit:

I

THAT THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ALLEGED MARIJUANA AS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION
IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT PRESENTED FOR LABORATORY EXAMINATION.

II

THAT THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WERE ONLY TWO OCCUPANTS, THE APPELLANTS, IN THE
VEHICLE WHERE THE ALLEGED MARIJUANA WAS CONFISCATED.

III

THAT THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED KNEW THAT THE CARGO THEY WERE TRANSPORTING
WAS MARIJUANA.

IV

THAT THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE ALLEGED CONFISCATED MARIJUANA.

V

THAT THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN SHIFTING FROM THE PROSECUTION THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE COMMISSION OF
THE OFFENSE CHARGED TO THE APPELLANTS TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE.” (Rollo, p. 40)

The main defense of the appellants is their claim that the
prohibited drugs belonged to their two passengers who loaded them in the jeep
as paying cargo without the appellants knowing that the cargo was marijuana.

In the second and third assignment of errors, the appellants
claim that the trial court erred in not appreciating their version of the
facts.

The appellants state that the trial court’s reliance on Sgt.
Baillo’s testimony that they were the only ones in the jeep cannot be given
credence as Sgt. Baillo’s testimony is full of inconsistencies.

The appellants cite Sgt. Baillo’s inconsistencies as to the time
of the arrest whether morning or afternoon, the time the checkpoint was removed
and the persons who were with him at the time of arrest.

It has been ruled that inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses not on material points is not fatal. Moreover, minor inconsistencies are to be
expected but must be disregarded if they do not affect the basic credibility of
the evidence as a whole. (People v.
Marcos, G.R. No. 83325, May 8, 1990)

The defense even state that there were a lot of policemen
(T.S.N., December 1, 1987, p. 22) and it was but natural that there would be
confusion on who was there at the time of the arrest.

The trial court gave credence to the positive and categorical
statement of Sgt. Baillo that there were only two occupants, and these were the
appellants inside the jeepney at the time (T.S.N., June 30, 1987, p. 18). We see no cogent reason to reverse this
finding of fact.

There is nothing in the records to suggest that the arrest was
motivated by any reason other than the desire of the police officers to
accomplish their mission. Courts
generally give full faith and credit to police officers when the facts and
circumstances surrounding their acts sustain the presumption that they have
performed their duties in a regular manner. (Rule 131, Section 5 (m), Rules of Court; People v. Marcos, supra;
People v. Yap and Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 87088-89, May 9, 1990)

The appellants put forward the testimony of Lawrence Balonglong
which corroborates and affirms their stand that there were, indeed, passengers
in the jeepney.

However, a close perusal of said testimony reveals no such
corroboration. The pertinent portions
of Balonglong’s testimony is as follows:

“xxx                                                                       xxx                                                              xxx

Q.         Where
were you when these two persons were apprehended?

A.          I
was in the Municipal Hall asleep, sir.

Q.         How
did you know then that these people were apprehended?

A.          It
is like this, sir, on the night of October 31, I was then asleep and at around
11:00, I guess, p.m., they awakened me so I went and I saw these two guys being
apprehended by the Narcom operative.

Court:

Q.         You
saw them being apprehended?

A.          No,
sir… I saw them there.

Q.         Already
apprehended?

A.          Already
apprehended.

Atty. Fianza:

Q.         And
when you saw these persons, what did you do, if any?

A.          What
I recall is that when I went to the road, where these two guys were
apprehended, the operatives boarded the same jeep and I even climbed the
jeep…. on top of the jeep holding my camera and tape recorder and we… I
don’t know… they chased, according to the operatives, they chased two
companions of the two arrested guys.” (T.S.N., May 11, 1988, p. 4)

In their brief, the appellants even admit
that “he (Balonglong) did not see the passengers” and it was just his
impression that there were other people present. (Appellant’s Brief, p. 7)

The appellants maintain that they did not know what was in the
cargo. Their main concern was in going
back to Baguio City and they saw no need to question their two passengers on
why flowers were being kept in closed cans and sacks. They were apprehended after midnight. They traversed a lonely
and reputedly dangerous portion of the mountain highway.

The appellants’ version is not
believable. It is inconceivable that
the appellants would not even bother to ask the names of the strangers who
approached them in a restaurant at night wanting to hire their jeepney,
considering that they were familiar with the identity of the passenger, Luisa
Mendoza, who hired them to transport her goods to Abatan, Buguias, Benguet.

It is likewise incredible that the appellants did not show the
slightest curiosity as to why flowers were being kept in closed tin cans and
sealed sacks and cellophane. On the
other hand, the appellants had clear knowledge that Luisa Mendoza was
transporting cartons containing dried fish and canned goods on the trip out of
Baguio. It is contrary to human
experience that the appellants would inquire about the name of the passenger
and the cargo she was loading on their jeep and not doing the same about
another who would transport goods on a midnight trip.

Well-settled is the rule that evidence to be believed, must not
only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible
itself. No better test has yet been
found to measure the value of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge
and common experience of mankind. (People v. Maribung, 149 SCRA 292, 297 [1987]; People v. Aldana, GR No.
81817, July 27, 1989; People v. Pascua, GR No. 82303, December 21, 1989).

The appellants further allege that if, indeed they knew about the
contents of their cargo, they would have adopted means to prevent detection or
to evade arrest.

At the time the appellants were being motioned by the policemen
to come nearer the checkpoint, there was no way that the appellants could have
evaded the arrest without putting their lives in jeopardy. They decided to just brazen it out with
police and insist on their version of the story.

As for the other assigned errors, the appellants in the first
assigned error, contend that since there is a discrepancy of 3.76 between the
number of kilos stated in the information (111.9 kilos) and in the report
(115.66 kilos) of the forensic chemist, it is very likely that the marijuana presented
as evidence was not the one confiscated from the appellants or even if they
were the same, it could have already been tampered with. The appellants conclude that the marijuana
then, cannot be admitted as evidence.

The marijuana examined by the forensic chemist, which was
contained in three big round tin cans, two jute sacks (there was really only
one jute sack colored light green which was confiscated but since one of the
plastic sacks [green] appeared to be tattered, some of its contents were transferred
to a white jute sack), (T.S.N., June 23, 1987, p. 5) and two plastic bags
colored yellow and green (T.S.N., June 23, 1987,. p. 3), was positively
identified to be the same as those confiscated from the appellants. This is very clear from the testimony of Lt.
Valeroso who stated:

“xxx                                                                       xxx                                                              xxx

Q.         When
you went down, where were these two suspects, as you said?

A.          They
were sitted (sic) at the front seat.

Q.         Front
seat of what?

A.          The
jeep, sir.

Q.         And
did you ask or see what was inside the jeep?

A.          Yes.

Q.         And
what were those?

A.          It
was all suspected marijuana dried leaves contained in three big cans, one sack
colored green, two sacks colored yellow
and green.” (Underlining supplied, T.S.N., September 16, 1987, p.
4)

Lt. Valeroso further testified that
Exhibits “B” (yellow plastic bag), “C” light green jute sack, “D” (green
plastic bag), “E” (one big can), “F” (second can), “G” (third can) were,
indeed, the same articles which he saw at the back of the jeepney of the
appellants. (T.S.N., September 16,
1987, p. 5)

One of the appellants, Moises Maspil, even admitted that the
articles identified by Lt. Valeroso in his testimony were indeed, the same
articles confiscated from their jeepney at Sayangan, Atok, Benguet. (T.S.N., February 24, 1988, pp. 34-35)

Moreover, the words “more or less” following the weight in kilos
of the marijuana in the questioned information declare that the number of kilos
stated therein is just an approximation. It can therefore be a little lighter or heavier. The slight discrepancy is not material.

Another ground stated by the appellants for the inadmissibility
in evidence of the confiscated marijuana is that the marijuana allegedly seized
from them was a product of an unlawful search without a warrant.

In the case of Valmonte v. de Villa,
G.R. No. 83988, September 29, 1989, the Court held that:

“xxx                                                                       xxx                                                              xxx

True, the manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of
abuse by the men in uniform, in the same manner that all governmental power is
susceptible of abuse. But at the cost
of occasional inconvenience, discomfort and even irritation to the citizen, the
checkpoints during these abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable
limits are part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful
community.”

The search was conducted within reasonable limits. There was information that a sizeable volume
of marijuana will be transported to take advantage of the All Saints Day
holiday wherein there will be a lot of people going to and from Baguio City
(T.S.N., September 16, 1987, p. 6). In
fact, during the three day (October 30, 1986 to November 1, 1986) duration of
the checkpoint, there were also other drug related arrests made aside from that
of the two appellants.

But even without the Valmonte ruling, the search would
still be valid. This case involves a
search incident to a lawful arrest which is one of the exceptions to the
general rule requiring a search warrant. This exception is embodied in Section 12 of Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules
on Criminal Procedure which provides:

“SEC. 12. Search incident
to lawful arrest. – A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons
or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without
a search warrant.”

and Rule 113, Section 5 (1) which state:

“SEC. 5. Arrest without
warrant; when lawful. – A
peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a)    When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense.”

This case falls squarely within the exceptions. The appellants were caught in flagrante
delicto since they were transporting the prohibited drugs at the time of their
arrest. (People v. Tangliben, G.R. No.
63630, April 6, 1990) A crime was actually being committed.

The appellants, however, cite the case of People v.
Aminnudin, (163 SCRA 402 [1988]). In said case, the PC officers received information that the
accused-appellant, on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City, was carrying
marijuana. When the accused-appellant
was descending the gangplank, the PC officers detained him and inspected the
bag that he was carrying and found marijuana. The Court ruled that since the marijuana was seized illegally, it is
inadmissible in evidence.

There are certain facts of the said case which are not present in
the case before us. In the Aminnudin
case, the records showed that there was sufficient time and adequate
information for the PC officers to have obtained a warrant. The officers knew the name of the accused,
that the accused was on board M/V Wilcon 9, bound to Iloilo and the exact date
of the arrival of the said vessel.

On the other hand, in this case there was no information as to
the exact description of the vehicle and no definite time of the arrival. A jeepney cannot be equated with a passenger
ship on the high seas. The ruling in
the Aminnudin case, is not applicable to the case at bar.

As for the fifth and last assigned error we agree with the
Solicitor General that:

“Examination of the testimonies of appellants show that they admit
the fact that the confiscated marijuana was taken from their jeep while they
were transporting it from Abatan, Buguias, Benguet to Baguio City. This being so, the burden of the prosecution
to prove illegal transportation of prohibited drugs punished under Section 4 of
RA 6425, as amended, has been satisfactorily discharged. The rule in civil as well as in criminal
cases is that each party must prove his own affirmative allegations. The prosecution avers the guilt of the
accused who is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved. Therefore, the prosecution must prove such
guilt by establishing the existence of all the elements of the crime charged. But facts judicially known, presumed,
admitted or confessed need not be proved. (Rule 129, Sec. 4, Rules on Evidence) (Appellee’s Brief, p. 26-27)

WHEREFORE, the guilt of the appellants having been proved
beyond reasonable doubt, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.