G.R. No. 123872 , January 30, 1998.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUBEN MONTILLA y GATDULA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ruben Montilla y Gatdula was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Dasmariñas, Cavite, for violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended. The information alleged that on or about June 20, 1994, in Barangay Salitran, Dasmariñas, Cavite, he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously administered, transported, and delivered 28 kilos of dried marijuana leaves. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution evidence established that SPO1 Concordio Talingting and SPO1 Armando Clarin, based on information from a civilian informant the day before, apprehended Montilla at around 4:00 A.M. on June 20, 1994, near a waiting shed in Barangay Salitran as he alighted from a passenger jeepney. He was caught transporting 28 marijuana bricks contained in a traveling bag and a carton box. The defense claimed Montilla traveled from Baguio City to Cavite only to look for a job offered by his cousin, Melita Adaci, and denied ownership of the marijuana, alleging he was not informed of his constitutional rights and was robbed of P500.00 during interrogation. The trial court convicted Montilla and imposed the death penalty and a fine of P500,000.00.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to prove the accused willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously administered, transported, and delivered marijuana.
2. Whether the failure to present the civilian informant in court violated the accused’s right to confrontation.
3. Whether the warrantless search and seizure were lawful.
4. Whether the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

1. Yes. The offense under Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act can be committed by any of the acts specified therein, such as sale, administration, delivery, or transportation. The prosecution adduced evidence, through the positive testimonies of the arresting officers, that Montilla transported marijuana from Baguio City to Cavite. This act alone constituted a violation of the law. The allegations in the information of multiple modes (administer, deliver, transport) describe only one offense and do not render it multifarious.
2. No. The non-presentation of the civilian informant was justified. The informant’s testimony would have been merely corroborative of the arresting officers’ personal testimonies, which were not hearsay. Informants are generally not presented to protect their identities and preserve their services. The prosecution has discretion in presenting witnesses, and the accused could have compelled the informant’s appearance via subpoena but did not.
3. Yes. The warrantless search and seizure were lawful as a valid search of a moving vehicle and as an incident to a lawful arrest. The police had probable cause based on the informant’s tip, which was sufficiently corroborated when Montilla alighted from the jeepney at the specified time and place carrying the described baggage. The information, while sketchy, did not provide sufficient details (e.g., exact name, specific delivery point, precise time) to obtain a warrant. The arrest was made in flagrante delicto as Montilla was caught in the act of transporting the prohibited drugs.
4. Yes. The guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The positive identification and testimonies of the police officers, presumed to have performed their duties regularly, prevailed over the accused’s denial and self-serving claims. The defense of denial, uncorroborated by strong evidence, is inherently weak. The evidence for the prosecution constituted prima facie evidence of the corpus delicti and of Montilla’s guilt.