G.R. No. 141137 ; January 20, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. VICTOR DIAZ VINECARIO; ARNOLD ROBLE and GERLYN WATES, Appellants.

FACTS

Appellants were convicted for transporting 1.7 kilos of marijuana. The prosecution established that on April 10, 1995, appellants sped past a COMELEC checkpoint in Davao City. Ordered to return, appellant Vinecario claimed to be a soldier but could not produce identification. Police noticed a large backpack on Vinecario and observed all appellants acting suspiciously. Suspecting a bomb, an officer ordered the bag opened, revealing packages that, when torn, emitted the smell of marijuana. Vinecario then said, “let us talk about this.” The contraband was seized and later confirmed to be marijuana.
Appellants presented a different account. They claimed the backpack was given to Vinecario by an acquaintance to deliver to a cousin, and they were unaware of its contents. They asserted the police investigation at the camp was conducted without counsel and they were made to sign documents without reading them. The trial court found the prosecution’s version credible and convicted all three appellants of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the warrantless search and seizure at the checkpoint were valid, and whether appellants’ guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The warrantless search was valid as a search of a moving vehicle. At a lawful COMELEC checkpoint, the act of speeding away justified the stop and inquiry. The officers’ observation of appellants’ nervousness and the suspicious handling of the backpack provided reasonable ground to suspect that a crime was being committed. When the package was opened and the odor of marijuana became apparent, there was probable cause to conduct a warrantless search and effect a lawful arrest.
The Court rejected the defense of frame-up and denial. The positive identification by the police officers prevailed over the appellants’ self-serving claims. The offer to “talk about this” by Vinecario was a tacit admission of guilt. The absence of counsel during the post-arrest investigation did not render the seized evidence inadmissible, as the search itself was lawful. The finding of conspiracy was sustained by the collective actions of the appellants in transporting the contraband on a single motorcycle. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was upheld, with the modification that the appellants should not be eligible for parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.