G.R. No. 120034 July 10, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSEFINA A. ESPARAS and RODRIGO O. LIBED (at large) accused, JOSEFINA A. ESPARAS, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On May 20, 1994, Josefina A. Esparas and her niece, Alma Juson, arrived at NAIA from Hongkong. At customs inspection, accused Rodrigo Libed (alleged husband of Esparas) presented Esparas’s baggage declaration form and placed her black traveling bag on the inspection table. Customs Examiner Perla Bandong discovered a false bottom in the bag, which, when slashed, yielded a black plastic bag containing yellowish crystalline granules. Collector Celso Templo denied Libed’s claim that the bag had been cleared by the Collector’s Office. While Libed was explaining, Juson and Esparas attempted to leave with a second traveling bag but were intercepted. The second bag also had a false bottom containing a similar substance. The substances, with a total weight of 19.94755 kilograms, were confirmed by Customs Chemist Elizabeth Ayonon to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). Esparas and Libed were charged with violating Section 14, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended, for illegally importing shabu. Esparas pleaded not guilty but absconded during trial after the prosecution presented its witnesses; Libed remained at large. The defense did not present witnesses but offered the records of the preliminary investigation, including Esparas’s counter-affidavit claiming the bags belonged to a certain Robert Yu who financed her trips. She requested to be a state witness against Yu. The trial court found Esparas guilty, imposing the death penalty and a P10 million fine, noting she belonged to an organized/syndicated crime group. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating accused-appellant Esparas’s request to act as a state witness against Robert Yu.
2. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the mandatory penalty of death and a fine of ten million pesos.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
1. The Court rejected the contention that Esparas should have been used as a state witness. The determination of who to charge is an executive function vested in the prosecutor. The prosecution validly refused her request as the requisites under Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure were not met; notably, Robert Yu was not a co-accused, and there was no absolute necessity for Esparas’s testimony since direct evidence (the shabu found in her possession) was available.
2. The Court upheld the imposition of the death penalty. The crime involved the importation of 19.94755 kilograms of shabu, a regulated drug. Under Section 14 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the penalty for importing 200 grams or more of shabu is mandatory death. The trial court correctly found that Esparas conspired with Libed, and the quantity of shabu warranted the supreme penalty. The fine of P10 million was also in accordance with the law.