G.R. No. 119246 January 30, 1998
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO CORREA y CAYTON @ “BOYET,” RITO GUNIDA y SESANTE @ “DODONG,” and LEONARDO DULAY y SANTOS @ “BOY KUBA,” accused-appellants.

FACTS

An Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila indicting appellants Antonio Correa, Rito Gunida, and Leonardo Dulay for violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 , as amended. They were charged with willfully, unlawfully, knowingly, and jointly delivering or transporting eight (8) bundles of dried marijuana flowering tops weighing 16.1789 kilograms on or about June 18, 1994, in Manila. Upon arraignment, they pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s case, based mainly on the testimony of SPO3 Jesus Faller, was that a police team from the Drug Enforcement Unit Western Police District Command (DEU-WPDC) placed appellant Leonardo Dulay under surveillance due to reports of his drug trafficking. On June 17, 1994, an informant alerted the unit that Dulay would transport drugs from Quezon City to Bambang Street, Manila, using a specific jeep. A nine-man team, including SPO3 Faller, set up an operation. At around 3:00 a.m. on June 18, they spotted and tailed the jeep. When it stopped at the intersection of Bambang Extension and Jose Abad Santos Avenue in Tondo, Manila, the police accosted the occupants. The appellants were inside: Correa driving, Dulay in the front passenger seat, and Gunida at the back. The police inspected a cylindrical tin can in the vehicle containing eight bundles of suspected marijuana, which they seized and marked. The substances were later confirmed by the NBI to be marijuana weighing 16.1789 kilograms.
The appellants presented a different version, claiming they were arrested without a warrant in Camarin, Caloocan City. Dulay testified that on June 17, he, Correa, and a neighbor were rushing his sick child to the hospital and later returning home when police blocked and arrested them near his house. Gunida claimed he was arrested at his home in Camarin while asleep. They denied transporting marijuana. Defense witnesses were presented to corroborate their claim of arrest in Caloocan City.
The trial court found the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced each to death and a fine of Ten Million Pesos. The marijuana and the jeep used were ordered confiscated.

ISSUE

The main issues raised by the appellants are: (1) whether the trial court had jurisdiction, alleging the arrest occurred in Caloocan City, not Manila; (2) whether the evidence (marijuana) was admissible, being allegedly the fruit of an illegal warrantless search; (3) whether the conviction based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of SPO3 Faller was proper; and (4) whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed in all respects except that the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua in its entire duration.
The Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction because the Information alleged the offense was committed in Manila, and the prosecution evidence established the arrest and seizure occurred at the intersection of Bambang Extension and Jose Abad Santos Avenue, Tondo, Manila. The positive identification by SPO3 Faller, a police officer, prevailed over the appellants’ denial and alibi. The defense witnesses’ testimonies were deemed insufficient to discredit the clear and consistent testimony of the prosecution witness.
Regarding the search and seizure, the Court ruled it was lawful as a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. The police had prior surveillance and information that the appellants were transporting drugs. Upon seeing the vehicle match the description and following it, they had probable cause to effect an in flagrante delicto arrest when the vehicle stopped. The inspection of the tin can, which was in plain view within the vehicle, was valid.
The Court found SPO3 Faller’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent. His testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The non-presentation of other arresting team members did not weaken the prosecution’s case, as there is no rule requiring all witnesses to be presented.
The Court agreed with the trial court that the prosecution proved the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the unlawful delivery and transportation of marijuana. However, it found the imposition of the death penalty erroneous. Applying Republic Act No. 7659 , the penalty for transporting 16.1789 kilograms of marijuana (exceeding 750 grams) is reclusion perpetua to death and a fine. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The fine of Ten Million Pesos was sustained.