G.R. No. 88017 January 21, 1991 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

LO HO WING alias PETER LO, LIM CHENG H !T alias !NTONIO LIM an" RE#N!L$O TI! y S!NTI!GO, "%&%n"an'(. LO HO WING alias PETER LO, defendant-appellant. The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Segundo M. Gloria, Jr. for defendant-appellant.

G!NC!#CO, J.:p This case involves the unlawful transport of metamphetamine, a regulated drug under Republic Act No. 642 , as amended. !ne of its derivatives is metamphetamine h"drochloride, notoriousl" #nown in street parlance as $shabu$ or $poor man%s cocaine.$ Appellant &eter 'o, together with co-accused 'im (heng )uat alias Antonio 'im and Re"naldo Tia, were charged with a violation of *ection + , Article ,,, of the aforementioned statute otherwise #nown as the -angerous -rugs Act of +./2, before 0ranch ++4 of the Regional Trial (ourt of &asa" (it". !nl" appellant and co-accused 'im (heng )uat were convicted. The" were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, to pa" a fine of &2 ,111.11 each, and to pa" the costs. Their co-accused Re"naldo Tia was discharged as a state witness. The pertinent portion of the information reads as follows2 That on or about the 6th da" of !ctober, +.3/, in &asa" (it", 4etro 4anila, and within the 5urisdiction of this )onorable (ourt, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutuall" helping one another, without authorit" of law, did then and there willfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl" deliver, dispatch or transport 6 teabags of 4etamphetamine, a regulated drug. (ontrar" to law.
1

The antecedent facts of the case as found b" the trial court are as follows2 ,n 6ul" +.3/, the *pecial !perations 7roup, a unit of the (riminal ,nvestigation *ervice 8(,*9 of the &hilippine (onstabular" 8&(9, received a tip from one of its informers about an organi:ed group engaged in the importation of illegal drugs, smuggling of contraband goods, and gunrunning. After an evaluation of the information thus received, a pro5ect codenamed $!&'AN *)AR!N 33/$ was created in order to bust the suspected s"ndicate. As part of the operations, the recruitment of confidential men and $deep penetration agents% was carried out to infiltrate the crime s"ndicate. !ne of those recruited was the discharged accused, Re"naldo Tia 8hereinafter referred to as Tia9. Tia was introduced to his co-accused 'im (heng )uat 8hereinafter referred to as 'im9 b" another confidential agent named 7eorge on August ;, +.3/. 'im e<pressed a desire to hire a male travelling companion for his business nips abroad. Tia offered his services and was hired. 'im and Tia met anew on several occasions to ma#e arrangements for a trip to (hina. ,n the course of those meetings, Tia was introduced to &eter 'o 8hereinafter referred to as appellant9, whom Tia found out to be the person he was to accompan" to (hina in lieu of 'im. As a $deep penetration agent,$ Tia regularl" submitted reports of his undercover activities on the suspected criminal s"ndicate. 4eanwhile, the officer-in-charge of !&'AN *)AR!N 33/, (aptain 'uisito &almera, filed with his superiors the reports submitted to him, and officiall" informed the -angerous -rugs 0oard of Tia%s activities. !n !ctober 4, +.3/, appellant and Tia left for )ong#ong on board a &hilippine Airlines flight. 0efore the" departed, Tia was able to telephone (aptain &almera to inform him of their e<pected date of return to the &hilippines as declared in his round-trip plane tic#et-!ctober 6, +.3/ at two o%cloc# in the afternoon. The da" after the" arrived in )ong#ong, Tia and appellant boarded a train bound for 7uang:hou, in the &eople%s Republic of (hina. =pon arriving there, the" chec#ed in at a hotel, and rested for a few hours. The pair thereafter went

to a local store where appellant purchased si< 869 tin cans of tea. Tia saw the paper tea bags when the cans were opened for e<amination during the purchase. Afterwards, the" returned to the hotel. Appellant #ept the cans of tea in his hotel room. That evening, Tia went to appellant%s room to tal# to him. =pon entering, he saw two other men with appellant. !ne was fi<ing the tea bags, while the other was burning substance on a piece of aluminum foil using a cigarette lighter. Appellant 5oined the second man and sniffed the smo#e emitted b" the burning substance. Tia as#ed the latter what the" would be bringing bac# to the &hilippines. )e was informed that their cargo consisted of (hinese drugs. Tia sta"ed in the room for about twent" minutes before going bac# to his room to sleep. The ne<t da", !ctober 6,+.3/, the two returned to 4anila via a (hina Airlines flight. Appellant had with him his red traveling bag with wheels. 0efore departing from 7uang:hou however, customs e<aminers inspected their luggage. The tin cans of tea were brought out from the traveling bag of appellant. The contents of the cans were not closel" e<amined, and appellant was cleared along with Tia. The plane landed at the Nino" A>uino ,nternational Airport 8NA,A9, then named 4anila ,nternational Airport, on schedule. 'im met the newl"-arrived pair at the arrival area. 'im tal#ed to appellant, while Tia, upon being instructed, loo#ed after their luggage. After 'im and appellant finished their conversation, the latter hailed a ta<icab. Appellant and Tia boarded the ta<icab after putting their luggage inside the bac# compartment of the vehicle. 'im followed in another ta<i cab. 4eanwhile, a team composed of si< operatives headed b" (aptain &almera was formed to act on the tip given b" Tia. !n the e<pected date of arrival, the team proceeded to the NA,A. (aptain &almera notified the Narcotics (ommand 8NAR(!49 -etachment at the airport for coordination. After a briefing, the operatives were ordered to ta#e strategic positions around the arrival area. Two operatives stationed 5ust outside the arrival area were the first ones to spot the suspects emerging therefrom. ?ord was passed on to the other members of the team that the suspects were in sight. Appellant was pulling along his red traveling bag while Tia was carr"ing a shoulder bag. The operatives also spotted 'im meeting their >uarr". =pon seeing appellant and Tia leave the airport, the operatives who first spotted them followed them. Along ,melda Avenue, the car of the operatives overtoo# the ta<icab ridden b" appellant and Tia and cut into its path forcing the ta<i driver to stop his vehicle. 4eanwhile, the other ta<icab carr"ing 'im sped awa" in an attempt to escape. The operatives disembar#ed from their car, approached the ta<icab, and as#ed the driver to open the baggage compartment. Three pieces of luggage were retrieved from the bac# compartment of the vehicle. The operatives re>uested from the suspects permission to search their luggage. A tin can of tea was ta#en out of the red traveling bag owned b" appellant. *gt. Roberto (a"ab"ab, one of the operatives, pried the lid open, pulled out a paper tea bag from the can and pressed it in the middle to feel its contents. *ome cr"stalline white powder resembling crushed alum came out of the bag. The sergeant then opened the tea bag and e<amined its contents more closel". *uspecting the cr"stalline powder to be a dangerous drug, he had the three traveling bags opened for inspection. @rom the red traveling bag, a total of si< 869 tin cans were found, including the one previousl" opened. Nothing else of conse>uence was recovered from the other bags. Tia and appellant were ta#en to the (,* )ead>uarters in Aue:on (it" for >uestioning. 4eanwhile, the second ta<icab was eventuall" overta#en b" two other operatives on Retiro *treet, Aue:on (it". 'im was li#ewise apprehended and brought to the (,* )ead>uarters for interrogation. -uring the investigation of the case, the si< tin cans recovered from the traveling bag of appellant were opened and e<amined. The" contained a total of fift"-si< 8 69 paper tea bags with white cr"stalline powder inside instead of tea leaves. The tea bag opened b" *gt. (a"ab"ab during the search and sei:ure was sent to the &(-,N& (rime 'aborator" for preliminar" e<amination. Tests conducted on a sample of the cr"stalline powder inside the tea bag "ielded a positive result that the specimen submitted was metamphetamine. *amples from each of the fift"-si< 8 69 tea bags were similarl" tested. The tests were also positive for metamphetamine. )ence, the three suspects were indicted. ,n rendering a 5udgment of conviction, the trial court gave full credence to the testimonies of the government antinarcotics operatives, to whom the said court applied the well-settled presumption of regularit" in the performance of official duties. Appellant now assigns three errors alleged to have been committed b" the trial court, namel"2 ,. T)B TR,A' (!=RT BRRB- ,N N!T -B('AR,N7 T)B *BAR() AN- *B,C=RB !N T)B A((=*B- A* ,''B7A'.

,,. T)B TR,A' (!=RT BRRB- ,N @,N-,N7 T)B A((=*B- 7=,'TD !@ -B',EBR,N7, -,*&AT(),N7 !R TRAN*&!RT,N7 4BTA4&)BTA4,NB, A RB7='ATB- -R=7. ,,,. T)B TR,A' (!=RT BRRB- ,N -,*()AR7,N7 RBDNA'-! T,A T! TB*T,@D @!R T)B &R!*B(=T,!N. ?e affirm. Anent the first assignment of error, appellant contends that the warrantless search and sei:ure made against the accused is illegal for being violative of *ection 2, Article ,,, of the (onstitution. )e reasons that the &(-(,* officers concerned could ver" well have procured a search warrant since the" had been informed of the date and time of a arrival of the accused at the NA,A well ahead of time, specificall" two 829 da"s in advance. The fact that the search and sei:ure in >uestion were made on a moving vehicle, appellant argues, does not automaticall" ma#e the warrantless search herein fall within the coverage of the well-#nown e<ception to the rule of the necessit" of a valid warrant to effect a search because, as aforementioned, the anti-narcotics agents had both time and opportunit" to secure a search warrant. The contentions are without merit. As correctl" averred b" appellee, that search and sei:ure must be supported b" a valid warrant is not an absolute rule. There are at least three 8;9 well-recogni:ed e<ceptions thereto. As set forth in the case of Manipon, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan , ) these are2 F+G a search incidental to an arrest, F2G a search of a moving vehicle, and F;G sei:ure of evidence in plain view 8emphasis supplied9. The circumstances of the case clearl" show that the search in >uestion was made as regards a moving vehicle. Therefore, a valid warrant was not necessar" to effect the search on appellant and his co-accused. ,n this connection, ?e cite with approval the averment of the *olicitor 7eneral, as contained in the appellee%s brief, that the rules governing search and sei:ure have over the "ears been steadil" liberali:ed whenever a moving vehicle is the ob5ect of the search on the basis of practicalit". This is so considering that before a warrant could be obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing 5udgeHa re>uirement which borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected b" the use of a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one place to another with impunit". * ?e might add that a warrantless search of a moving vehicle is 5ustified on the ground that $it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be >uic#l" moved out of the localit" or 5urisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.$ + ,n the instant case, it was firml" established from the factual findings of the trial court that the authorities had reasonable ground to believe that appellant would attempt to bring in contraband and transport it within the countr". The belief was based on intelligence reports gathered from surveillance activities on the suspected s"ndicate, of which appellant was touted to be a member. Aside from this, the" were also certain as to the e<pected date and time of arrival of the accused from (hina. 0ut such #nowledge was clearl" insufficient to enable them to fulfill the re>uirements for the issuance of a search warrant. *till and all, the important thing is that there was probable cause to conduct the warrantless search, which must still be present in such a case. The second assignment of error is li#ewise lac#ing in merit. Appellant was charged and convicted under *ection + , Article ,,, of Republic Act No. 642 , as amended, which reads2 The penalt" of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twent" thousand to thirt" thousand pesos shall be imposed upon an" person who, unless authori:ed b" law, shall sell, dispose, deliver, transport or distribute an" regulated drug 8emphasis supplied9. The information charged the accused of delivering, transporting or dispatching fift"-si< 8 69 tea bags containing metamphetamine, a regulated drug. The con5unction $or% was used, thereb" impl"ing that the accused were being charged of the three specified acts in the alternative. Appellant argues that he cannot be convicted of $deliver"$ because the term connotes a source and a recipient, the latter being absent under the facts of the case. ,t is also argued that $dispatching% cannot appl" either since appellant never sent off or disposed of drugs. As for $transporting,$ appellant contends that he cannot also be held liable therefor because the act of transporting necessaril" re>uires a point of destination, which again is non- e<istent under the given facts. The contentions are futile attempts to strain the meaning of the operative acts of which appellant and his co-accused were charged in relation to the facts of the case. There is no doubt that law enforcers caught appellant and his coaccused in flagrante delicto of transporting a prohibited drug. The term $transport$ is defined as $to carr" or conve" from one place to another.$ , The operative words in the definition are $to carr" or conve".$ The fact that there is actual conve"ance suffices to support a finding that the act of transporting was committed. ,t is immaterial whether or
2

not the place of destination is reached. @urthermore, the argument of appellant gives rise to the illogical conclusion that he and his co- accused did not intend to bring the metamphetamine an"where, i.e.the" had no place of destination. The situation in the instant case is one where the transport of a prohibited drug was interrupted b" the search and arrest of the accused. ,nterruption necessaril" infers that an act had alread" been commenced. !therwise, there would be nothing to interrupt. Therefore, considering the foregoing, since the information included the acts of deliver", dispatch or transport, proof be"ond reasonable doubt of the commission of any of the acts so included is sufficient for conviction under *ection + , Article ,,, of Republic Act No. 642 , as amended. 4oreover, the act of transporting a prohibited drug is a malum prohibitum because it is punished as an offense under a special law. ,t is a wrong because it is prohibited b" law. ?ithout the law punishing the act, it cannot be considered a wrong. As such, the mere commission of said act is what constitutes the offense punished and suffices to validl" charge and convict an individual caught committing the act so punished, regardless of criminal intent. 7 As to the third assigned error, appellant contests the discharge of accused Re"naldo Tia to testif" for the prosecution on the ground that there was no necessit" for the same. Appellant argues that deep penetration agents such as Tia $have to ta#e ris#s and accept the conse>uences of their actions.$ 8 The argument is devoid of merit. The discharge of accused Tia was based on *ection ., Rule ++. of the Rules of (ourt, which reads in part2 *ec. .. Discharge of the accused to be state witness . H ?hen two or more persons are 5ointl" charged with the commission of an" offense, upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that the" ma" be witnesses for the state . . . 8emphasis supplied9. As correctl" pointed out b" the *olicitor 7eneral, the discharge of an accused is left to the sound discretion of the lower court. The trial court has the e<clusive responsibilit" to see that the conditions prescribed b" the rule e<ist. 9,n the instant case, appellant does not allege that an" of the conditions for the discharge had not been met b" the prosecution. Therefore, the discharge, as ordered b" the trial court, stands. @inall", appellant alleges that the testimon" of *gt. Roberto (a"ab"ab regarding the facts surrounding the commission of the offense proves that the discharge of accused Tia is unnecessar". The allegation is baseless. Appellant himself admits that the sergeant%s testimon" corroborates the testimon" of the discharged accused. The fact of corroboration of the testimonies bolsters the validit" of the >uestioned discharge precisel" because paragraph 8a9 of the afore>uoted rule on discharge re>uires that the testimon" be substantiall" corroborated in its material points. The corroborative testimon" of the &(-(,* operative does not debun# the claim of the prosecution that there is absolute necessit" for the testimon" of accused Tia. ?)BRB@!RB, the decision appealed from is hereb" A@@,R4B- in toto and the appeal is thereb" -,*4,**B-. No costs. *! !R-BRB-. arvasa, !ru", Gri#o-$%uino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.