GR 104088; (March, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 104088-89. March 13, 1996.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE JAIN and BELTRAN GARAIS, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
On March 2, 1988, during a sea patrol off Bauang, La Union, coast guard officers boarded the fishing boat “Milogen de Luxe” due to its suspicious markings and expired documents. Upon inspection, they discovered seven and a half sacks of marijuana, ninety .38 caliber firearms, and 1,150 rounds of ammunition. The crew, including appellants Vicente Jain and Beltran Garais, were arrested. Jain and Agoni, identified as leaders, were apprehended upon returning to the boat from ashore. The contraband was inventoried, and forensic tests confirmed the substance was marijuana and the firearms were serviceable. Records from the Firearms and Explosives Unit showed none of the accused were licensed firearm holders.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellants Jain and Garais for illegal transport of marijuana and illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the convictions with a modification on the penalty for the firearms violation. The court found the warrantless search and seizure valid as a permissible search of a vessel, an exception to the warrant requirement, due to the coast guard’s authority to inspect maritime vessels for safety and law enforcement. The appellants were caught in flagrante delicto, and the testimonies of the law enforcers were deemed credible, enjoying the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty, especially absent any proof of ill motive. For the violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act (illegal transport), the evidence, including the testimonies and the forensic report, constituted proof beyond reasonable doubt of their direct involvement. Regarding the violation of P.D. 1866 (illegal possession), the offense is malum prohibitum; mere possession of the unlicensed firearms and ammunition was sufficient for conviction, with criminal intent being immaterial. The court modified the penalty for this offense by applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposing an indeterminate penalty of seventeen years, four months, and one day as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum.