*

G.R. No. 63630. April 6, 1990.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MEDEL TANGLIBEN Y BERNARDINO,

defendant-appellant.

Dangerous Drugs Act; Criminal Procedure; Arrest; Lawful arrest without warrant.—Accused was caught

in flagrante, since he was carrying marijuana at the time of his arrest. This case therefore falls squarely
within the exception. The warrantless search was incident to a lawful arrest and is consequently valid.
Same;  Same;  Non-presentation of the informer, not fatal to prosecution’s case.—In attacking the
sufficiency of evidence, the appellant avers that the informer should have been presented before the lower
court. We discard this argument as a futile attempt to revive an already settled issue. This Court has ruled
in several cases that non-presentation of the informer, where his testimony would be merely corroborative or
cumulative, is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. (People v. Asio, G.R. No. 84960, September 1, 1989; People
v. Viola, G.R. No. 64262, March 16, 1989; People v. Capulong, 160 SCRA 533 [1988]; People v. Cerelegia, 147
SCRA 538).
Same; Same; Same; Findings of the trial court on the issue of credibility of witnesses are entitled to great
respect and accorded the highest consideration by the appellate court.—As to doubtfulness of evidence, well-
settled is the rule that findings of the trial court on the issue of credibility of witnesses and their testimonies
are entitled to great respect and accorded the highest consideration by the appellate court. Since credibility
is a matter that is peculiarly within the province of the trial judge, who had first hand opportunity to watch
and observe the demeanor and behavior of witnesses both for the prosecution and the defense at the time of
their testimony.
Same;  Same;  Same;  Appellant’s having jumped bail is akin to flight tending to establish guilt.—
Moreover, the appellant’s having jumped bail is akin to flight which, as correctly observed by the lower
court, is an added circumstance tending to establish his guilt.

APPEAL from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, Br. 41.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

________________

* THIRD DIVISION.

221

VOL. 184, APRIL 6, 1990 221

People vs. Tangliben

     The Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

     Katz N. Tierra for defendant-appellant.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Third Judicial Region
at San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 41, finding appellant Medel Tangliben y Bernardino guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972 as amended) and sentencing him to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P20,000 and to
pay the costs.
The information filed against the appellant alleged:
“That on or about the 2nd day of March, 1982, in the municipality of San Fernando, Province of Pampanga,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused MEDEL
TANGLIBEN y BERNARDINO, knowing fully well that Marijuana is a prohibited drug, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody one (1) bag of dried
marijuana leaves with an approximate weight of one (1) kilo and to transport (sic) the same to Olongapo
City, without authority of law to do so.” (At p. 6, Rollo)

The prosecution’s evidence upon which the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt was based is
narrated by the trial court as follows:
“It appears from the evidence presented by the prosecution that in the late evening of March 2, 1982,
Patrolmen Silverio Quevedo and Romeo L. Punzalan of the San Fernando Police Station, together with
Barangay Tanod Macario Sacdalan, were conducting surveillance mission at the Victory Liner Terminal
compound located at Barangay San Nicolas, San Fernando, Pampanga; that the surveillance mission was
aimed not only against persons who may commit misdemeanors at the said place but also on persons who
may be engaging in the traffic of dangerous drugs based on informations supplied by informers; that it was
around 9:30 in the evening that said Patrolmen noticed a person carrying a red traveling bag (Exhibit G)
who was acting suspiciously and they confronted him; that the person was requested by Patrolmen Quevedo
and Punzalan to open the red traveling bag but the person refused, only to accede later on when the
patrolmen identi-

222

222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tangliben

fied themselves; that found inside the bag were marijuana leaves (Exhibit B) wrapped in a plastic wrapper
and weighing one kilo, more or less; that the person was asked of his name and the reason why he was at
the said place and he gave his name as Medel Tangliben and explained that he was waiting for a ride to
Olongapo City to deliver the marijuana leaves; that the accused was taken to the police headquarters at San
Fernando, Pampanga, for further investigation; and that Pat. Silverio Quevedo submitted to his Station
Commander his Investigator’s Report (Exhibit F).
It appears also from the prosecution’s evidence that in the following morning or on March 3, 1982, Pat.
Silverio Quevedo asked his co-policeman Pat. Roberto Quevedo, who happens to be his brother and who has
had special training on narcotics, to conduct a field test on a little portion of the marijuana leaves and to
have the remaining portion examined by the PCCL at Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga; that Pat.
Roberto Quevedo conducted a field test (Exhibit H) on the marijuana leaves and found positive result for
marijuana (Exhibit E); that the remaining bigger quantity of the marijuana leaves were taken to the PCCL
at Camp Olivas by Pat. Roberto Quevedo that same day of March 3, 1982 (Exhibit A and A-1) and when
examined, the same were also found to be marijuana (Exhibit C and C-1).” (At pp. 9-10, Rollo)

Only the accused testified in his defense. His testimony is narrated by the trial court as follows:
“The accused declared that he got married on October 25, 1981 and his wife begot a child on June 10, 1982;
that he was formerly employed in the poultry farm of his uncle Alejandro Caluma in Antipolo, Rizal; that he
is engaged in the business of selling poultry medicine and feeds, including chicks, and used to conduct his
business at Taytay, Rizal; that he goes to Subic at times in connection with his business and whenever he is
in Subic, he used to buy C-rations from one Nena Ballon and dispose the same in Manila; that he never left
his residence at Antipolo, Rizal, on March 2, 1982; that on March 3, 1982, he went to Subic to collect a
balance of P100.00 from a customer thereat and to buy C-rations; that he was able to meet Nena Ballon at
6:00 o’clock in the evening and he stayed in Nena’s house up to 8:00 o’clock because he had a drinking spree
with Nena’s son; that he tried to catch the 8:00 o’clock trip to Manila from Olongapo City but he failed and
was able to take the bus only by 9:00 o’clock that evening; that it was a Victory Liner Bus that he rode and
because he was tipsy, he did not notice that the bus was only bound for San Fernando

223
 VOL. 184, APRIL 6, 1990 223
People vs. Tangliben

Pampanga; that upon alighting at the Victory Liner Compound at San Fernando, Pampanga he crossed the
street to wait for a bus going to Manila; that while thus waiting for a bus, a man whom he came to know
later as Pat. Punzalan, approached him and asked him if he has any residence certificate; that when he took
out his wallet, Pat. Punzalan got the wallet and took all the money inside the wallet amounting to P545.00;
that Pat. Punzalan told him that he’ll be taken to the municipal building for verification as he may be an
NPA member; that at the municipal building, he saw a policeman, identified by him later as Pat. Silverio
Quevedo, sleeping but was awakened when he arrived; that Pat. Quevedo took him upstairs and told him to
take out everything from his pocket saying that the prisoners inside the jail may get the same from him;
that inside his pocket was a fifty-peso bill and Pat. Quevedo took the same, telling him that it shall be
returned to him but that it was never returned to him; that he was thereafter placed under detention and
somebody told him that he is being charged with possession of marijuana and if he would like to be bailed
out, somebody is willing to help him; and, that when he was visited by his wife, he told his wife that
Patrolman Silverio Quevedo took away all his money but he told his wife not to complain anymore as it
would be useless.” (Rollo, pp. 10-11)

Appellant, through counsel de oficio Atty. Enrique Chan, raised the lone assignment of error in
his appeal:
“THE COURT A-QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND FINDING HIM
GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED ON INSUFFICIENT AND DOUBTFUL EVIDENCE.” (At p. 48,
Rollo)

The Solicitor-General likewise filed his brief, basically reiterating the lower court’s findings.
However, before this Court had the chance to act on appeal, counsel de oficio Atty. Enrique
Chan died. Thereafter, this court appointed a new counsel de oficio, Atty. Katz Tierra, and
pursuant thereto, the Deputy Clerk of Court, in behalf of the Clerk of Court, required the new
counsel to file her appellant’s brief. The latter complied and, in her brief, raised the following
assignment of errors:
224

224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tangliben

“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING AS EVIDENCE THE PACKAGE OF MARIJUANA

ALLEGEDLY SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AS IT WAS A PRODUCT OF AN UNLAWFUL
SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT.

II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING AS EVIDENCE THE ALLEGED PACKAGE OF

MARIJUANA LEAVES AS THE LEAVES SUPPOSEDLY SEIZED FROM ACCUSED WHEN IT WAS
NEVER AUTHENTICATED.

III
 THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE
GUILT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.” (At pp. 92-93, Rollo)

It is contended that the marijuana allegedly seized from the accused was a product of an
unlawful search without a warrant and is therefore inadmissible in evidence.
This contention is devoid of merit.
One of the exceptions to the general rule requiring a search warrant is a search incident to a
lawful arrest. Thus, Section 12 of Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

“Section 12. Search incident to a lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.”

Meanwhile, Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) provides:

“x x x A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense.”

Accused was caught in flagrante, since he was carrying mari-

225

VOL. 184, APRIL 6, 1990 225

People vs. Tangliben

juana at the time of his arrest. This case therefore falls squarely within the exception. The
warrantless search was incident to a lawful arrest and is consequently valid.
In the case of People v. Claudio, 160 SCRA 646, [1988] this Court, confronted with the same
issue, held that:
“Appellant Claudio was caught transporting prohibited drugs. Pat. Daniel did not need a warrant to arrest
Claudio as the latter was caught in flagrante delicto. The warrantless search being an incident to a lawful
arrest is in itself lawful. (Nolasco v. Paño, 147 SCRA 509). Therefore, there was no infirmity in the seizure of
the 1.1 kilos of marijuana.”

We are not unmindful of the decision of this Court in People v. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA 402 [1988].
In that case the PC officers had earlier received a tip from an informer that accused-appellant
was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. Acting on this tip, they
waited for him one evening, approached him as he descended from the gangplank, detained him
and inspected the bag he was carrying. Said bag contained marijuana leaves. The Court held that
the marijuana could not be admitted in evidence since it was seized illegally.
The records show, however, that there were certain facts, not existing in the case before us,
which led the Court to declare the seizure as invalid. As stated therein:

“The present case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is
clear that they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant of arrest and search
Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was identified.
The date of its arrival was certain. And from the information they had received, they could have persuaded a
judge that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No
effort was made to comply with the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant
who was the head of the arresting team, had determined on his own authority that a ‘search warrant was
not necessary.’ ”
In contrast, the case before us presented urgency. Although the trial court’s decision did not
mention it, the transcript of
226

226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tangliben

stenographic notes reveals that there was an informer who pointed to the accused-appellant as
carrying marijuana. (TSN, pp. 52-53) Faced with such on-the-spot information, the police officers
had to act quickly. There was not enough time to secure a search warrant. We cannot therefore
apply the ruling in Aminnudin to the case at bar. To require search warrants during on-the-spot
apprehensions of drug pushers, illegal possessors of firearms, jueteng collectors, smugglers of
contraband goods, robbers, etc. would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to contain the
crimes with which these persons are associated.
Accused-appellant likewise asserts that the package of marijuana leaves supposedly seized
from him was never authenticated and therefore should not have been admitted as evidence. He
capitalizes on the fact that the marijuana package brought by Patrolman Roberto Quevedo to the
PC Crime Laboratory for examination did not contain a tag bearing the name of the accused. We
rule, however, that since Patrolman Quevedo testified that he gave the marijuana package
together with a letter-request for examination, and the forensic chemist Marilene Salangad
likewise testified that she received the marijuana together with the letter-request and said letter-
request bore the name of the accused, then the requirements of proper authentication of evidence
were sufficiently complied with. The marijuana package examined by the forensic chemist was
satisfactorily identified as the one seized from accused.
Even assuming arguendo that the marijuana sent to the PC Crime Laboratory was not
properly authenticated, still, we cannot discount the separate field test conducted by witness
Roberto Quevedo which yielded positive results for marijuana.
Lastly, the appellant claims that the evidence upon which he was convicted was insufficient
and doubtful and that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt.
In attacking the sufficiency of evidence, the appellant avers that the informer should have
been presented before the lower court. We discard this argument as a futile attempt to revive an
already settled issue. This Court has ruled in several cases that non-presentation of the informer,
where his testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative, is not fatal to the prosecution’s
case. (People v. Asio, G.R. No. 84960, September 1, 1989;
227

VOL. 184, APRIL 6, 1990 227

People vs. Tangliben

People v. Viola,  G.R. No. 64262, March 16, 1989;  People v. Capulong,  160 SCRA
533 [1988]; People v. Cerelegia, 147 SCRA 538).
As to doubtfulness of evidence, well-settled is the rule that findings of the trial court on the
issue of credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect and accorded
the highest consideration by the appellate court. Since credibility is a matter that is peculiarly
within the province of the trial judge, who had first hand opportunity to watch and observe the
demeanor and behavior of witnesses both for the prosecution and the defense at the time of their
testimony (People v. Tejada, G.R. No. 81520, February 21, 1989; People v. Turla, 167 SCRA 278),
we find no reason to disturb the following findings:
“The testimony of prosecution witnesses Patrolmen Silverio Quevedo and Romeo Punzalan are positive and
sufficiently clear to show the commission by the accused of the offense herein charged. These prosecution
witnesses have no motive to fabricate the facts and to foist a very serious offense against the accused. The
knowledge on what these witnesses testified to were (sic) acquired by them in the official performance of
their duties and their (sic) being no showing that they are prejudiced against the accused, their testimonies
deserve full credit.
The testimonies of the afore-mentioned patrolmen that what they found in the possession of the accused
were marijuana leaves were corroborated by the examination findings conducted by Pat. Roberto Quevedo
(Exhibit H) and by Forensic Chemist Marlene Salangad of the PCCL, with station at Camp Olivas, San
Fernando, Pampanga (Exhibits C and C-1). (Rollo, p. 11)
“Moreover, if there is truth in the testimony of the accused to the effect that Pat. Punzalan got all the
money from his wallet when he was accosted at the Victory Liner Terminal and was told just to keep quiet,
otherwise he will be ‘salvaged’, why will Pat. Punzalan still bring the accused to the Municipal Building for
interrogation and/or verification? Would not Pat. Punzalan be exposing his identity to the accused? This is
unnatural. And this is also true on the testimony of the accused that Pat. Silverio Quevedo got his fifty-peso
bill and never returned the same to him. If the two policemen really got any money from the accused and
that the marijuana leaves do not belong to the accused, why will the two policemen still produce in Court as
evidence that expensive-looking traveling red bag (Exhibit G) taken from the accused and which contained
the marijuana leaves in question if the

228

228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tangliben

instant case is a mere fabrication?

As already stated, all the evidence, oral and documentary, presented by the prosecution in this case were
all based on personal knowledge acquired by the prosecution witnesses in the regular performance of their
official duties and there is nothing in their testimonies to show that they are bias (sic) or that they have any
prejudice against the herein accused. Between the testimonies of these prosecution witnesses and that of the
uncorroborated and self-serving testimony of the accused, the former should prevail.” (Rollo, p. 13)

Likewise, the appellant chose to limit his defense to his own testimony. He could have availed
himself through compulsory court processes of several witnesses to buttress his defense. Since not
one other witness was presented nor was any justification for the non-appearance given, the
inadequacy of his lone and uncorroborated testimony remains. It cannot prevail vis-a-vis the
positive testimonies given by the prosecution witnesses.
Moreover, the appellant’s having jumped bail is akin to flight which, as correctly observed by
the lower court, is an added circumstance tending to establish his guilt.
We take exception, however, to the trial court’s finding that:

“The dried marijuana leaves found in the possession of the accused weighs one (1) kilo, more or less. The
intent to transport the same is clear from the testimony of Pat. Silverio Quevedo who declared, among other
things, that when he confronted the accused that night, the latter told him that he (accused) is bringing the
marijuana leaves to Olongapo City. Moreover, considering the quantity of the marijuana leaves found in the
possession of the accused and the place he was arrested which is at San Fernando, Pampanga, a place where
the accused is not residing, it can be said that the intent to transport the marijuana leaves has been clearly
established.” (Rollo, pp. 13-14)

The alleged extrajudicial confession of the accused which, on the other hand, he categorically
denied in court, that he is transporting the marijuana leaves to Olongapo City cannot be relied
upon. Even assuming it to be true, the extrajudicial confession cannot be admitted because it does
not appear in the records that the accused, during custodial investigation, was apprised of his
rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed of such rights. In People v. Duero, 104
SCRA 379 [1981], the Court pronounced that “inasmuch as the prosecu-
229

VOL. 184, APRIL 6, 1990 229

People vs. Tangliben

tion failed to prove that before Duero made his alleged oral confession he was informed of his
rights to remain silent and to have counsel and because there is no proof that he knowingly and
intelligently waived those rights, his confession is inadmissible in evidence. This ruling was
reiterated in People v. Tolentino, 145 SCRA 597 [1986], where the Court added that:
“In effect, the Court not only abrogated the rule on presumption of regularity of official acts relative to
admissibility of statements taken during in-custody interrogation but likewise dispelled any doubt as to the
full adoption of the Miranda doctrine in this jurisdiction. It is now incumbent upon the prosecution to prove
during a trial that prior to questioning, the confessant was warned of his constitutionally protected rights.”

The trial judge likewise found the marijuana to weigh one kilo, more or less, and from this
finding extracted a clear intent to transport the marijuana leaves. It may be pointed out,
however, that although the information stated the weight to be approximately one kilo, the
forensic chemist who examined the marijuana leaves testified that the marijuana weighed only
600 grams. Such amount is not a considerable quantity as to conclusively confer upon the accused
an intent to transport the marijuana leaves.
Nor can it be said that the intent to transport is clearly established from the fact that the
accused was arrested at San Fernando, Pampanga, a place which is not his residence. Conviction
of a crime with an extremely severe penalty must be based on evidence which is clearer and more
convincing than the inferences in this case.
What was therefore proved beyond reasonable doubt is not his intent to transport the
marijuana leaves but his actual possession.
The offense committed by the appellant is possession of marijuana under Section 8 of Republic
Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended).
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction by the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED but
MODIFIED. The appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six
(6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and fine of Six Thousand (P6,000.00) Pesos.
230

230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lansang, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

SO ORDERED.

     Fernan (C.J., Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin and Cortés, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed but modified.

 Note.—Failure of fiscal to present testimony of NARCOM informer is not fatal. (People vs.
Cerelegia, 147 SCRA 528.)