G.R. No. L-99866 June 2, 1993
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Sidro Doro y Daliguis and Reynario Ganab y Gamueda, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Sidro Doro y Daliguis and Reynario Ganab y Gamueda were charged with attempting to transport two bricks of dried marijuana flowering tops in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. They pleaded not guilty. The prosecution evidence, as summarized by the trial court, established that on June 5, 1990, a PC team from the 191st PC Company in Tuba, Benguet, acting on a tip from a civilian informer about two persons transporting marijuana via a Philippine Rabbit bus, conducted surveillance at the Baguio City terminal. After about three hours, the informer pointed out the two suspects on board Bus No. 409, which was about to depart. PC team members approached the accused, identified themselves, and asked about the packages on their laps. The accused voluntarily opened the newspaper-wrapped packages, which were found to contain marijuana, leading to their arrest. The defense presented a different version through witnesses Nestor Gatchalon (a security guard), Joseph Dy (a passenger), and accused-appellant Sidro Doro. They testified that the arresting officers, in civilian clothes, boarded the bus, asked the accused to alight, and, after the security guard intervened, all passengers were made to bring down their luggage. A black elongated bag left inside the bus was then opened by the officers and found to contain marijuana. The accused were taken with the bag. The trial court convicted both accused, sentencing each to life imprisonment and a fine.

ISSUE

The issues raised by the accused-appellants are: (1) whether the trial court erred in finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt and in not appreciating the evidence for the defense, and (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting the evidence since the arrests and the search on their persons and belongings were done in violation of their constitutional rights.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, giving more credence to the testimony of prosecution witness C1C Paul Mencio, a law enforcer presumed to have regularly performed his duty in the absence of proof to the contrary. His sole, credible, and positive testimony was deemed sufficient to convict, overcoming the presumption of innocence. The defense’s version was not found compelling. On the second issue, the Court agreed with the trial court and the Solicitor General that the accused-appellants effectively waived any objection to the warrantless search and seizure by voluntarily opening the packages without demanding a warrant. Thus, the conviction was sustained.