G.R. No. 136860 ; January 20, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGPANGA LIBNAO y KITTEN and ROSITA NUNGA y VALENCIA, accused. AGPANGA LIBNAO y KITTEN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

In August 1996, police intelligence operatives in Tarlac began surveillance on suspected drug dealers based on information from an asset about a woman from Tajiri, Tarlac, and a companion from Baguio City transporting illegal drugs monthly in large quantities. On October 19, 1996, at about 10:00 p.m., Police Chief Inspector Benjamin Arceo held a briefing regarding a tip that the two suspects, riding a tricycle, would be making a delivery that night. A checkpoint was established in Barangay Salapungan. At around 1:00 a.m. on October 20, 1996, SPO1 Marlon Gamotea and PO3 Florante Ferrer flagged down a tricycle with two female passengers, later identified as appellant Agpanga Libnao and co-accused Rosita Nunga. A black bag was in front of them. Due to suspicion aroused by the bag and the passengers’ uneasy behavior when questioned, the officers invited them to the Kabayan Center. The black bag was brought along. At the center, with Barangay Captain Roy Pascual present as a witness, the bag was opened and found to contain eight bricks of leaves suspected to be marijuana, later confirmed by forensic examination to be marijuana leaves weighing eight kilos. During investigation, Nunga stated the bag belonged to Libnao, which Libnao disputed. They were made to sign a confiscation receipt without counsel. Both accused pleaded not guilty. At trial, Nunga testified she was merely buying medicine for her child and denied owning the bag or knowing its contents. Appellant did not appear in court; her lawyer submitted an affidavit from a security guard, Efren Gannod, stating a woman was arrested at a bus terminal, but Gannod was not presented to testify. The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused of violating Article II, Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and a fine of two million pesos. Appellant appealed.

ISSUE

The main issues raised by the appellant are: (1) whether her warrantless arrest and the search of the black bag were lawful; (2) whether her rights during custodial investigation were violated; (3) whether inconsistencies in the prosecution’s testimonies cast doubt on their case; and (4) whether the trial court erred in appreciating evidence not formally offered.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court ruled that the warrantless search of the moving vehicle (tricycle) was valid under the exception for moving vehicles, based on probable cause. The police had been conducting surveillance for three months and received a specific tip that the appellant and her co-accused would be transporting drugs that night. The search was conducted upon a reasonably arising belief that the vehicle contained contraband. The warrantless arrest was also valid as it was made during the commission of a crime (in flagrante delicto), as the officers had probable cause to believe based on the tip and the suspects’ behavior that an offense was being committed. Regarding custodial investigation, the Court noted that the constitutional rights during custodial investigation apply only when a person is under investigation for the commission of an offense and is being asked incriminating questions. The signing of the confiscation receipt was merely a ministerial act and not part of custodial investigation where the accused’s statements could be used against them. The Court found no material inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies that would affect their credibility. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers stands in the absence of evidence of improper motive. The defense of denial and alibi, unsupported by clear evidence, cannot prevail over the positive identification by prosecution witnesses. The Court also found no merit in the claim regarding evidence not formally offered, as the records showed the evidence was properly presented and offered.