EN BANC The City Jail Warden is, therefore, directed to release

the accused Modesto Tee in connection with Crim.

G.R. Nos. 140546-47            January 20, 2003 Case No. 15822-R unless held on other charges.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, COST(S) DE OFFICIO.

vs.
MODESTO TEE a.k.a. ESTOY TEE, accused-appellant. SO ORDERED.3

QUISUMBING, J.: Appellant is a Chinese national in his forties, a businessman,

and a resident of Baguio City. A raid conducted by operatives
For automatic review is the consolidated judgment 1 of the of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Philippine
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 6, dated National Police Narcotics Command (PNP NARCOM) at
September 17, 1999, in Criminal Cases Nos. 15800-R and premises allegedly leased by appellant and at his residence
15822-R, involving violations of Section 8, Article II, of the yielded huge quantities of marijuana.
Dangerous Drugs Law.2 Since appellant was acquitted in the
second case, we focus on the first case, where appellant has On July 20, 1998, appellant moved to quash the search
been found guilty and sentenced to death and fined one warrant on the ground that it was too general and that the
million pesos. NBI had not complied with the requirements for the issuance
of a valid search warrant. The pendency of said motion,
The decretal portion of the trial court’s decision reads: however, did not stop the filing of the appropriate charges
against appellant. In an information dated July 24, 1998,
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, as docketed as Criminal Case No. 15800-R, the City Prosecutor of
follows: Baguio City charged Modesto Tee, alias "Estoy Tee," with
illegal possession of marijuana, allegedly committed as
follows:
1. In Crim. Case No. 15800-R, the Court finds the
accused Modesto Tee guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the offense of illegal possession of That on or about the 1st day of July, 1998 in the City
marijuana of about 591.81 kilos in violation of of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
Section 8, Article II of RA 6425 as amended by this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
Section 13 of RA 7659 as charged in the Information, then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and
seized by virtue of a search warrant and sentences knowingly have in his possession the following, to
him to the supreme penalty of death and to pay a wit:
fine of 1 million pesos without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency. 1. Ninety-two (92) bricks of dried flowering tops
separately contained in four (4) boxes; and
The 591.81 kilos of marijuana contained in 26 boxes
and one yellow sack (Exhibits U-1 to U-27) are 2. One hundred fifty-eight (158) bricks, twenty-one
ordered forfeited in favor of the State to be (21) blocks, and twenty-three (23) bags of dried
destroyed immediately in accordance with law. flowering tops separately contained in thirteen (13)
sacks, with a total weight of 336.93 kilograms; and
2. In Crim. Case No. 15822-R, the Court finds that the
prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused 3 Six hundred two (602) bricks of dried flowering
Modesto Tee beyond reasonable doubt and hereby tops separately contained in twenty-six (boxes) and
acquits him of the charge of illegal possession of a yellow sack, weighing 591.81 kilograms,
marijuana in violation of Section 8, Art. 2 of RA 6425
as amended by Section 13 of RA 7659 as charged in all having a grand total weight of 928.74 kilograms, a
the Information since the marijuana confiscated prohibited drug, without the authority of law to
have to be excluded in evidence as a product of possess, in violation of the above-cited provision of
unreasonable search and seizure. law.

The 336.93 kilos of marijuana contained in 13 sacks CONTRARY TO LAW.4

and four boxes (Exh. B to S and their component
parts) although excluded in evidence as the On August 7, 1998, the prosecution moved to "amend" the
product(s) of unreasonable search and seizure, are foregoing charge sheet "considering that subject marijuana
nevertheless ordered forfeited in favor of the State were seized in two (2) different places."5
to be destroyed immediately in accordance with law
considering that they are prohibited articles.
As a result, the information in Criminal Case No. 15800-R was Prosecution witness Danilo Abratique, a Baguio-based taxi
amended to read as follows: driver, and the appellant Modesto Tee are well acquainted
with each other, since Abratique’s wife is the sister of Tee’s
That on or about the 1st day of July, 1998, in the City sister-in-law.9
of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did Sometime in late June 1998, appellant asked Abratique to
then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and find him a place for the storage of smuggled
knowingly have in his possession the following, to cigarettes.10 Abratique brought appellant to his friend, Albert
wit: Ballesteros, who had a house for rent in Bakakeng, Baguio
City. After negotiating the terms and conditions, Ballesteros
- Six hundred two (602) bricks of dried flowering tops agreed to rent out his place to appellant. Appellant then
separately contained in twenty-six (26) boxes and a brought several boxes of purported "blue seal" cigarettes to
yellow sack, weighing 591.81 kilograms the leased premises.

a prohibited drug, without the authority of law to Shortly thereafter, however, Ballesteros learned that the
possess, in violation of the above-cited provision of boxes stored in his place were not "blue seal" cigarettes but
law. marijuana. Fearful of being involved, Ballesteros informed
Abratique. Both later prevailed upon appellant to remove
CONTRARY TO LAW.6 them from the premises.11

A separate amended information docketed as Criminal Case Appellant then hired Abratique’s taxi and transported the
No. 15822-R was likewise filed, the accusatory portion of boxes of cannabis from the Ballesteros place to appellant’s
which reads: residence at Km. 6, Dontogan, Green Valley, Sto. Tomas,
Baguio City.12
That on or about the 1st day of July, 1998 in the City
of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of On June 30, 1998, appellant hired Abratique to drive him to
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did La Trinidad, Benguet on the pretext of buying and
then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and transporting strawberries. Upon reaching La Trinidad,
knowingly have in his possession the following, to however, appellant directed Abratique to proceed to Sablan,
wit: Benguet, where appellant proceeded to load several sacks of
marijuana in Abratique’s taxi. He then asked Abratique to find
him a place where he could store the contraband.13
1. Ninety-two (92) bricks of dried flowering
tops separately contained in four (4) boxes;
and Abratique brought appellant to his grandmother’s house at
No. 27 Dr. Cariño St., QM Subdivision, Baguio City, which was
being managed by Abratique’s aunt, Nazarea Abreau.
2. hundred fifty-eight (158) bricks, twenty-
Nazarea agreed to rent a room to appellant. Abratique and
one (21) blocks, and twenty-three (23) bags
appellant unloaded and stored there the sacks of marijuana
of dried flowering tops separately
brought from Sablan.14 Abratique was aware that they were
contained in thirteen (13) sacks, with a total
transporting marijuana as some of the articles in the sacks
weight of 336.93 kilograms;
became exposed in the process of loading.15
a prohibited drug, without the authority of law to
Eventually, Abratique and Nazarea were bothered by the
possess, in violation of the above-cited provision of
nature of the goods stored in the rented room. She confided
law.
to her daughter, Alice Abreau Fianza, about their
predicament. As Alice Fianza’s brother-in-law, Edwin Fianza,
CONTRARY TO LAW.7 was an NBI agent, Alice and Abratique phoned him and
disclosed what had transpired.16
On September 4, 1998, the trial court denied the motion to
quash the search warrant and ordered appellant’s
arraignment.

When arraigned in Criminal Cases Nos. 15800-R and 15822-R,

appellant refused to enter a plea. The trial court entered a
plea of not guilty for him.8 Trial on the merits then ensued.

The facts of this case, as gleaned from the records, are as

follows:
On the morning of July 1, 1998, alerted by information that In Criminal Case No. 15822-R, the trial court agreed with
appellant would retrieve the sacks of prohibited drugs that appellant that the taking of the 336.93 kilograms of
day, Edwin Fianza and other NBI operatives conducted a marijuana was the result of an illegal search and hence,
stake out at No. 27, Dr. Cariño St. While the NBI agents were inadmissible in evidence against appellant. Appellant was
conducting their surveillance, they noticed that several PNP accordingly acquitted of the charge. However, the trial court
NARCOM personnel were also watching the place. 17 The NBI found that the prosecution’s evidence was more than ample
then learned that the PNP NARCOM had received a tip from to prove appellant’s guilt in Criminal Case No. 15800-R and as
one of their informers regarding the presence of a huge earlier stated, duly convicted him of illegal possession of
amount of drugs in that place. The NBI and PNP NARCOM marijuana and sentenced him to death.
agreed to have a joint operation.
Hence, this automatic review.
As the day wore on and appellant did not show up, the NBI
agents became apprehensive that the whole operation could Before us, appellant submits that the trial court erred in:
be jeopardized. They sought the permission of Nazarea
Abreau to enter the room rented by appellant. She acceded 1…UPHOLDING THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH
and allowed them entry. The NBI team then searched the WARRANT DESPITE LACK OF COMPLIANCE OF (sic)
rented premises and found four (4) boxes and thirteen (13) SEVERAL REQUIREMENTS BEFORE IT SHOULD HAVE
sacks of marijuana, totaling 336.93 kilograms.18 BEEN ISSUED AND IT BEING A GENERAL WARRANT;

Later that evening, NBI Special Agent Darwin Lising, with 2….GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REOPENING
Abratique as his witness, applied for a search warrant from THE CASE AND ALLOWING ABRITIQUE TO TESTIFY
RTC Judge Antonio Reyes at his residence.19 Judge Reyes AGAINST APPELLANT;
ordered the NBI agents to fetch the Branch Clerk of Court,
Atty. Delilah Muñoz, so the proceedings could be properly
3…GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF
recorded. After Atty. Muñoz arrived, Judge Reyes questioned
ABRITIQUE;
Lising and Abratique. Thereafter, the judge issued a warrant
directing the NBI to search appellant’s residence at Km. 6,
4. NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED IN BOTH CASES
Dontogan, Green Valley, Baguio City for marijuana. 20
AND SENTENCING HIM TO DEATH DESPITE THE
ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE AS FOUND IN THE
The NBI operatives, with some PNP NARCOM personnel in
FIRST CASE.28
tow, proceeded to appellant’s residence where they served
the warrant upon appellant himself. 21 The search was
We find that the pertinent issues for resolution concern the
witnessed by appellant, members of his family, barangay
following: (1) the validity of the search conducted at the
officials, and members of the media. 22 Photographs were
appellant’s residence; (2) the alleged prejudice caused by the
taken during the actual search. 23 The law enforcers found 26
reopening of the case and absences of the prosecution
boxes and a sack of dried marijuana 24 in the water tank,
witness, on appellant’s right to speedy trial; (3) the sufficiency
garage, and storeroom of appellant’s residence. 25 The total
of the prosecution’s evidence to sustain a finding of guilt with
weight of the haul was 591.81 kilograms. 26 Appellant was
moral certainty; and (4) the propriety of the penalty imposed.
arrested for illegal possession of marijuana.

1. On the Validity of the Search Warrant; Its Obtention and

The seized items were then submitted to the NBI laboratory
Execution
for testing. NBI Forensic Chemist Maria Carina Madrigal
conducted the tests. Detailed microscopic and
chromatographic examinations of the items taken from Appellant initially contends that the warrant, which directed
appellant’s rented room at No. 27, Dr. Cariño St., as well as the peace officers to search for and seize "an undetermined
those from his residence at Green Valley, showed these to be amount of marijuana," was too general and hence, void for
marijuana.27 vagueness. He insists that Abratique could already estimate
the amount of marijuana supposed to be found at appellant’s
residence since Abratique helped to transport the same.
In his defense, appellant contended that the physical
evidence of the prosecution was illegally obtained, being the
products of an unlawful search, hence inadmissible. Appellant For the appellee, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
insisted that the search warrant was too general and the counters that a search warrant is issued if a judge finds
process by which said warrant was acquired did not satisfy probable cause that the place to be searched contains
the constitutional requirements for the issuance of a valid prohibited drugs, and not that he believes the place contains
search warrant. Moreover, Abratique’s testimony, which was a specific amount of it. The OSG points out that, as the trial
heavily relied upon by the judge who issued the warrant, was court observed, it is impossible beforehand to determine the
hearsay. exact amount of prohibited drugs that a person has on
himself.
Appellant avers that the phrase "an undetermined amount of restriction upon the objects to be seized by the officers
marijuana" as used in the search warrant fails to satisfy the serving the warrant. Thus, it prevents exploratory searches,
requirement of Article III, Section 2 29 of the Constitution that which might be violative of the Bill of Rights.
the things to be seized must be particularly described.
Appellant’s contention, in our view, has no leg to stand on. Appellant next assails the warrant for merely stating that he
The constitutional requirement of reasonable particularity of should be searched, as he could be guilty of violation of
description of the things to be seized is primarily meant to Republic Act No. 6425. Appellant claims that this is a
enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to: (1) readily sweeping statement as said statute lists a number of offenses
identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them with respect to illegal drugs. Hence, he contends, said
from seizing the wrong items;30 and (2) leave said peace warrant is a general warrant and is thus unconstitutional.
officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized
and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. 31 What For the appellee, the OSG points out that the warrant clearly
the Constitution seeks to avoid are search warrants of broad states that appellant has in his possession and control
or general characterization or sweeping descriptions, which marijuana or Indian hemp, in violation of Section 8 of
will authorize police officers to undertake a fishing expedition Republic Act No. 6425.
to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or
articles relating to an offense. 32 However, it is not required
We have carefully scrutinized Search Warrant No. 415 (7-
that technical precision of description be
98),41 and we find that it is captioned "For Violation of R.A.
required,33 particularly, where by the nature of the goods to
6425, as amended."42 It is clearly stated in the body of the
be seized, their description must be rather general, since the
warrant that "there is probable cause to believe that a case
requirement of a technical description would mean that no
for violation of R.A. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as
warrant could issue.34
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as further amended by R.A.
7659 has been and is being committed by one MODESTO TEE
Thus, it has been held that term "narcotics paraphernalia" is a.k.a. ESTOY TEE of Km. 6, Dontogan Bgy., Green Valley, Sto.
not so wanting in particularity as to create a general Tomas, Baguio City by having in his possession and control an
warrant.35 Nor is the description "any and all narcotics" and UNDETERMINED AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA or INDIAN HEMP
"all implements, paraphernalia, articles, papers and records in violation of the aforementioned law." 43 In an earlier case,
pertaining to" the use, possession, or sale of narcotics or we held that though the specific section of the Dangerous
dangerous drugs so broad as to be unconstitutional. 36 A Drugs Law is not pinpointed, "there is no question at all of the
search warrant commanding peace officers to seize "a specific offense alleged to have been committed as a basis for
quantity of loose heroin" has been held sufficiently the finding of probable cause."44 Appellant’s averment is,
particular.37 therefore, baseless. Search Warrant No. 415 (7-98) appears
clearly issued for one offense, namely, illegal possession of
Tested against the foregoing precedents, the description "an marijuana.
undetermined amount of marijuana" must be held to satisfy
the requirement for particularity in a search warrant. Appellant next faults the Judge who issued Search Warrant
Noteworthy, what is to be seized in the instant case is No. 415 (7-98) for his failure to exhaustively examine the
property of a specified character, i.e., marijuana, an illicit applicant and his witness. Appellant points out that said
drug. By reason of its character and the circumstances under magistrate should not have swallowed all of Abratique’s
which it would be found, said article is illegal. A further statements – – hook, line, and sinker. He points out that since
description would be unnecessary and ordinarily impossible, Abratique consented to assist in the transport of the
except as to such character, the place, and the marijuana, the examining judge should have elicited from
circumstances.38 Thus, this Court has held that the description Abratique his participation in the crime and his motive for
"illegally in possession of undetermined quantity/amount of squealing on appellant. Appellant further points out that the
dried marijuana leaves and Methamphetamine Hydrochloride evidence of the NBI operative who applied for the warrant is
(Shabu) and sets of paraphernalia" particularizes the things to merely hearsay and should not have been given credit at all
be seized.39 by Judge Reyes.

The search warrant in the present case, given its nearly Again, the lack of factual basis for appellant’s contention is
similar wording, "undetermined amount of marijuana or apparent. The OSG points out that Abratique personally
Indian hemp," in our view, has satisfied the Constitution’s assisted appellant in loading and transporting the marijuana
requirements on particularity of description. The description to the latter’s house and to appellant’s rented room at No. 27
therein is: (1) as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily Dr. Cariño St., Baguio City. Definitely, this indicates personal
allow; (2) expresses a conclusion of fact – not of law – by knowledge on Abratique’s part. Law enforcers cannot
which the peace officers may be guided in making the search themselves be eyewitnesses to every crime; they are allowed
and seizure; and (3) limits the things to be seized to those to present witnesses before an examining judge. In this case,
which bear direct relation to the offense for which the witness Abratique personally saw and handled the marijuana.
warrant is being issued.40 Said warrant imposes a meaningful Hence, the NBI did not rely on hearsay information in
applying for a search warrant but on personal knowledge of But he had a witness, Danilo Abratique, who had personal
the witness, Abratique. knowledge about said drugs and their particular location.
Abratique’s statements to the NBI and to Judge Reyes
Before a valid search warrant is issued, both the contained credible and reliable details. As the NBI’s witness,
Constitution45 and the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Abratique was a person on whose statements Judge Reyes
Procedure46 require that the judge must personally examine could rely. His detailed description of appellant’s activities
the complainant and his witnesses under oath or affirmation. with respect to the seized drugs was substantial. In relying on
The personal examination must not be merely routinary witness Abratique, Judge Reyes was not depending on casual
or pro forma, but must be probing and exhaustive.47 In the rumor circulating in the underworld, but on personal
instant case, it is not disputed that Judge Antonio Reyes knowledge Abratique possessed.
personally examined NBI Special Investigator III Darwin A.
Lising, the applicant for the search warrant as well as his In Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, 64 Phil. 33,
witness, Danilo G. Abratique. Notes of the proceedings were 44 (1937), we held that:
taken by Atty. Delilah Muñoz, Clerk of Court, RTC of Baguio
City, Branch 61, whom Judge Reyes had ordered to be The true test of sufficiency of a deposition or
summoned. In the letter of transmittal of the Clerk of Court of affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is
the RTC of Baguio City, Branch 61 to Branch 6 of said court, whether it has been drawn in such a manner that
mention is made of "notes" at "pages 7-11."48 We have perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held
thoroughly perused the records of Search Warrant No. 415 liable for damages caused.58
(7-98) and nowhere find said "notes." The depositions of
Lising and Abratique were not attached to Search Warrant Appellant argues that the address indicated in the search
No. 415 (7-98) as required by the Rules of Court. We must warrant did not clearly indicate the place to be searched. The
stress, however, that the purpose of the Rules in requiring OSG points out that the address stated in the warrant is as
depositions to be taken is to satisfy the examining magistrate specific as can be. The NBI even submitted a detailed sketch
as to the existence of probable cause. 49 The Bill of Rights does of the premises prepared by Abratique, thus ensuring that
not make it an imperative necessity that depositions be there would be no mistake.
attached to the records of an application for a search
warrant. Hence, said omission is not necessarily fatal, for as
A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the
long as there is evidence on the record showing what
officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
testimony was presented.50 In the testimony of witness
ascertain and identify the place intended 59 and distinguish it
Abratique, Judge Reyes required Abratique to confirm the
from other places in the community. 60 A designation or
contents of his affidavit; 51 there were instances when Judge
description that points out the place to be searched to the
Reyes questioned him extensively.52 It is presumed that a
exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the
judicial function has been regularly performed, 53 absent a
peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of
showing to the contrary. A magistrate’s determination of
definiteness.
probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid
great deference by a reviewing court, 54 as long as there was
Appellant finally harps on the use of unnecessary force during
substantial basis for that determination. 55 Substantial basis
the execution of the search warrant. Appellant fails, however,
means that the questions of the examining judge brought out
to point to any evidentiary matter in the record to support his
such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably
contention. Defense witness Cipriana Tee, appellant’s
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
mother, testified on the search conducted but she said
committed, and the objects in connection with the offense
nothing that indicated the use of force on the part of the NBI
sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched.
operatives who conducted the search and seizure. 61 What the
record discloses is that the warrant was served on
On record, appellant never raised the want of adequate
appellant,62 who was given time to read it,63 and the search
depositions to support Warrant No. 415 (7-98) in his motion
was witnessed by the barangay officials, police operatives,
to quash before the trial court. Instead, his motion contained
members of the media, and appellant’s kith and kin. 64 No
vague generalities that Judge Reyes failed to ask searching
breakage or other damage to the place searched is shown. No
questions of the applicant and his witness. Belatedly,
injuries sustained by appellant, or any witness, appears on
however, he now claims that Judge Reyes perfunctorily
record. The execution of the warrant, in our view, has been
examined said witness.56 But it is settled that when a motion
orderly and peaceably performed.
to quash a warrant is filed, all grounds and objections then
available, existent or known, should be raised in the original
2. On The Alleged Violation of Appellant’s Substantive Rights
or subsequent proceedings for the quashal of the warrant,
otherwise they are deemed waived.57
Appellant insists that the prosecution’s unjustified and willful
delay in presenting witness Abratique unduly delayed the
In this case, NBI Special Investigator Lising’s knowledge of the
resolution of his case. He points out that a total of eight (8)
illicit drugs stored in appellant’s house was indeed hearsay.
scheduled hearings had to be reset due to the failure or days.75 However, in determining the right of an accused to
willful refusal of Abratique to testify against him. Appellant speedy trial, courts should do more than a mathematical
insists that said lapse on the prosecution’s part violated computation of the number of postponements of the
Supreme Court Circular No. 38-98.65 Appellant now alleges scheduled hearings of the case.76 The right to a speedy trial is
that the prosecution deliberately resorted to delaying the deemed violated only when: (1) the proceedings are attended
case to cause him untold miseries. by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; 77 or (2) when
unjustified postponements are asked for and secured; 78 or (3)
For the appellee, the OSG points out that the two-month when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of
delay in the trial is not such a great length of time as to time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case
amount to a violation of appellant’s right to a speedy trial. A tried.79
trial is always subject to reasonable delays or postponements,
but absent any showing that these delays are capricious and In the present case, although the absences of prosecution
oppressive, the State should not be deprived of a reasonable witness Abratique totaled twenty (20) hearing days, there is
opportunity to prosecute the criminal action. no showing whatsoever that prosecution capriciously caused
Abratique’s absences so as to vex or oppress appellant and
On record, the trial court found that prosecution witness deny him his rights. On record, after Abratique repeatedly
Danilo G. Abratique failed to appear in no less than eighteen failed to show up for the taking of his testimony, the
(18) hearings, namely those set for February 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, prosecution went to the extent of praying that the trial court
10, and 24; March 9, 15, 22, and 23; April 6, 7, 8, 16, and 19, order the arrest of Abratique to compel his attendance at
all in 1999.66 No less than four (4) warrants of arrest were trial. The prosecution likewise tried to get the NBI to produce
issued against him to compel him to testify. 67 The NBI agent Abratique as the latter was in the Bureau’s custody, but to no
who supposedly had him in custody was found guilty of avail. Eventually, the trial court ordered the prosecution to
contempt of court for failing to produce Abratique at said waive its right to present Abratique and rest its case on the
hearings and sanctioned.68 The prosecution had to write the evidence already offered.80
NBI Regional Director in Baguio City and NBI Director in
Manila regarding the failure of the Bureau’s agents to bring Nor do we find a delay of twenty (20) hearing days to be an
Abratique to court.69 Nothing on record discloses the reason unreasonable length of time. Delay of less than two months
for Abratique’s aforecited absences. On the scheduled has been found, in fact, to be not an unreasonably lengthy
hearing of June 7, 1999, he was again absent thus causing the period of time.81
trial court to again order his arrest for the fifth time.70 He also
failed to show up at the hearing of June 8, 1999.71 Moreover, nothing on record shows that appellant Modesto
Tee objected to the inability of the prosecution to produce its
Appellant now stresses that the failure of Abratique to appear witness. Under the Rules, appellant could have moved the
and testify on twenty (20) hearing dates violated appellant’s trial court to require that witness Abratique post bail to
constitutional72 and statutory right to a speedy trial. ensure that the latter would testify when
required.82 Appellant could have moved to have Abratique
A speedy trial means a trial conducted according to the law of found in contempt and duly sanctioned. Appellant did
criminal procedure and the rules and regulations, free from neither. It is a bit too late in the day for appellant to invoke
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. 73 In Conde v. now his right to speedy trial.
Rivera and Unson, 45 Phil. 650, 652 (1924), the Court held
that "where a prosecuting officer, without good cause, No persuasive reason supports appellant’s claim that his
secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his constitutional right to speedy trial was violated. One must
protest beyond a reasonable period of time, as in this take into account that a trial is always subject to
instance, for more than a year, the accused is entitled to postponements and other causes of delay. But in the absence
relief by a proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of of a showing that delays were unreasonable and capricious,
the information, or if he be restrained of his liberty, the State should not be deprived of a reasonable opportunity
by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom." of prosecuting an accused.83

The concept of speedy trial is necessarily relative. A Appellant next contends that the trial court gravely abused its
determination as to whether the right has been violated discretion, and exhibited partiality, when it allowed the
involves the weighing of several factors such as the length of reopening of the case after the prosecution had failed to
the delay, the reason for the delay, the conduct of the present Abratique on several occasions and had been
prosecution and the accused, and the efforts exerted by the directed to rest its case. Appellant stresses that the lower
defendant to assert his right, as well as the prejudice and court’s order to reopen the case to receive Abratique’s
damage caused to the accused.74 further testimony is an indication that the trial court favored
the prosecution and unduly prejudiced appellant.
The Speedy Trial Act of 1998, provides that the trial period for
criminal cases in general shall be one hundred eighty (180)
On appellee’s behalf, the Solicitor General points out that the particular facts involved in the case. A judge cannot be
trial court’s order was in the interest of substantial justice faulted should he require a material witness to complete his
and hence, cannot be termed as an abuse of discretion. The testimony, which is what happened in this case. It is but
OSG points out that the prosecution had not formally rested proper that the judge’s mind be satisfied on any and all
its case and had yet to present its formal offer of evidence, questions presented during the trial, in order to serve the
hence, the submission of additional testimony by the same cause of justice.
witness cannot be prejudicial to the accused, it being but the
mere continuation of an uncompleted testimony. Appellant’s claim that the trial court’s concession to "reopen"
Furthermore, appellant did not properly oppose the the case unduly prejudiced him is not well taken. We note
prosecution’s motion to reopen the case. that appellant had every opportunity to present his evidence
to support his case or to refute the prosecution’s evidence
At the time Criminal Cases Nos. 15800-R and 15822-R were point-by-point, after the prosecution had rested its case. In
being tried, the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure were in short, appellant was never deprived of his day in court. A day
effect. There was no specific provision at that time governing in court is the touchstone of the right to due process in
motions to reopen.84 Nonetheless, long and established usage criminal justice.92 Thus, we are unable to hold that a grave
has led to the recognition and acceptance of a motion to abuse of discretion was committed by the trial court when it
reopen. In view of the absence of a specific procedural rule, ordered the so-called "reopening" in order to complete the
the only controlling guideline governing a motion to reopen testimony of a prosecution witness.
was the paramount interests of justice. As a rule, the matter
of reopening of a case for reception of further evidence after 3. On the Sufficiency of the Prosecution’s Evidence
either prosecution or defense has rested its case is within the
discretion of the trial court. 85 However, a concession to a In bidding for acquittal, appellant assails the credibility of
reopening must not prejudice the accused or deny him the Abratique as a witness. Appellant insists that Abratique’s
opportunity to introduce counter evidence.86 testimony is profuse with lies, contrary to human nature,
hence incredible. According to appellant, Abratique was
Strictly speaking, however, there was no reopening of the evasive from the outset with respect to certain questions of
cases in the proceedings below. A motion to reopen may the trial court. He adds that it appeared the court entertained
properly be presented only after either or both parties have in particular the suspicion that witness Abratique had
formally offered and closed their evidence, but before conspired with appellant in committing the crime charged.
judgment.87 In the instant case, the records show that on Appellant questions Abratique’s motive in informing the NBI
April 19, 1999, the prosecution was directed to close its about his activities related to the marijuana taking, transfer,
evidence and given 15 days to make its formal offer of and warehousing.
evidence.88 This order apparently arose from the
manifestation of the prosecution on April 16, 1999 that The OSG contends that Abratique’s testimony, taken as a
should they fail to produce witness Abratique on the next whole, is credible. It points out that Abratique testified in a
scheduled hearing the prosecution would rest its case. 89 On straightforward manner as to his knowledge of the huge
April 19, 1999, which was the next scheduled hearing after cache of prohibited drugs stashed by appellant in two
April 16, 1999, Abratique was absent notwithstanding different places. His testimony, said the OSG, when fused
notices, orders, and warrants of arrest. However, on April 27, with the physical evidence consisting of 591.81 kilograms of
1999, or before the prosecution had formally offered its marijuana found by law enforcers at appellant’s residence,
evidence, Abratique was brought to the trial court by the NBI. inexorably leads to the inculpation of appellant.
In its order of said date, the trial court pointed out that the
prosecution could move to "reopen" the case for the taking
It is the bounden duty of the courts to test the prosecution
of Abratique’s testimony.90 On May 7, 1999, the prosecution
evidence rigorously, so that no innocent person is made to
so moved, stressing that it had not yet formally offered its
suffer the unusually severe penalties meted out for drug
evidence and that the substantial rights of the accused would
offenses.93 Though we scrutinized minutely the testimony of
not be prejudiced inasmuch as the latter had yet to present
Abratique, we find no cogent reason to disbelieve him. From
his evidence. Appellant filed no opposition to the motion. The
his account, Abratique might appear aware treading the thin
trial court granted the motion six days later. Plainly, there
line between innocence and feeling guilty, with certain
was nothing to reopen, as the prosecution had not formally
portions of his story tending to be self-exculpatory. However,
rested its case. Moreover, the taking of Abratique’s testimony
his whole testimony could not be discredited. The established
was not for the purpose of presenting additional evidence,
rule is that testimony of a witness may be believed in part
but more properly for the completion of his unfinished
and disbelieved in other parts, depending on the
testimony. In U.S. vs. Base,91 we held that a trial court is not in
corroborative evidence and the probabilities and
error, if it opts to reopen the proceedings of a case, even
improbabilities of the case. But it is accepted, as a matter of
after both sides had rested and the case submitted for
common sense, that if certain parts of a witness’ testimony
decision, by the calling of additional witnesses or recalling of
are found true, his testimony cannot be disregarded
witnesses so as to satisfy the judge’s mind with reference to
entirely.94
Abratique testified in open court that appellant rented the the onus probandi is shifted to accused to explain the
taxicab he was driving, and he helped appellant transport absence of knowledge or animus possidendi98 in this situation.
huge amounts of marijuana to appellant’s rented room at No.
27 Dr. Cariño St., Baguio City and to appellant’s residence at Appellant Modesto Tee opted not to testify in his defense.
Km. 6, Dontogan, Green Valley, Sto. Tomas, Baguio City. He Instead, he presented his mother as his lone witness, who
also declared on the witness stand that out of fear of being testified on matters totally irrelevant to his case. We can only
involved, he decided to divulge his knowledge of appellant’s conclude that, failing to discharge the burden of the evidence
possession of large caches of marijuana to the NBI. When the on the possession of prohibited drug, appellant’s guilt in
places referred to by Abratique were searched by the Criminal Case No. 15800-R was established beyond
authorities, marijuana in staggering quantities was found and reasonable doubt.
seized by the law enforcers. Stated plainly, the physical
evidence in this case corroborated Abratique’s testimony on 4. On The Proper Penalty
material points.
Under Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by Republic Act No.
Appellant imputes questionable motives to Abratique in an 7659, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
effort to discredit him. He demands that Abratique should ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to
likewise be prosecuted. However, by no means is the possible ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) 99 shall be imposed if the
guilt of Abratique a tenable defense for appellant. Nor would quantity of marijuana involved in a conviction for possession
Abratique’s prosecution mean appellant’s absolution. of marijuana or Indian hemp shall be 750 grams or more. 100

In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the In the present case, the quantity of marijuana involved has
following facts must be proven with moral certainty: (1) that been shown by the prosecution to be far in excess of 750
the accused is in possession of the object identified as grams, as stressed by the trial court:
prohibited or regulated drug; (2) that such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and
The volume is rather staggering. It is almost one
consciously possessed the said drug.95
whole house or one whole room. In fact, when they
were first brought to the court, it took hours to load
We find the foregoing elements proven in Criminal Case No. them on the truck and hours also to unload them
15800-R beyond reasonable doubt. prompting the court to direct that the boxes and
sack of marijuana be instead kept at the NBI office in
In said case, the testimony of Abratique and the recovery of Baguio. And the identification of said marijuana
591.81 kilograms of marijuana from appellant’s residence during the trial was made in the NBI premises itself
served to prove appellant’s possession of a prohibited drug. by the witnesses since it was physically cumbersome
Tests conducted by the NBI forensic chemist proved the and inconvenient to keep bringing them to the court
seized articles to be marijuana. These articles were seized during every trial.101
pursuant to a valid search warrant and hence, fully admissible
in evidence. In sentencing appellant to death, the trial court noted not
only the huge quantity of marijuana bales involved, but also
In People v. de los Reyes, 239 SCRA 439 (1994), we held that "the acts of accused of hiding them in different places…and
the Dangerous Drugs Act applies generally to all persons and transferring them from place to place and making them
proscribes the sale of dangerous drugs by any person, and no appear as boxes of cigarettes to avoid and evade
person is authorized to sell such drugs. Said doctrine is apprehension and detection." They showed his being a big
equally applicable with respect to possession of prohibited supplier, said the trial court, [whose] criminal perversity and
drugs. Republic Act No. 6425, which penalizes the possession craft that "deserve the supreme penalty of death."102
of prohibited drugs, applies equally to all persons in this
jurisdiction and no person is authorized to possess said We are unable to agree, however, with the penalty imposed
articles, without authority of law. by the trial court. The legislature never intended that where
the quantity involved exceeds those stated in Section 20 of
Anent the third element, we have held that to warrant Republic Act No. 6425 the maximum penalty of death shall
conviction, possession of illegal drugs must be with automatically be imposed.103 The statute prescribes two
knowledge of the accused or that animus possidendi existed indivisible penalties: reclusion perpetua and death. Hence,
together with the possession or control of said the penalty to be imposed must conform with Article 63 104 of
articles.96 Nonetheless, this dictum must be read in the Revised Penal Code. As already held, the death penalty
consonance with our ruling that possession of a prohibited law, Republic Act No. 7659 did not amend Article 63 of the
drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge Revised Penal Code.105 The rules in Article 63 apply although
or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a the prohibited drugs involved are in excess of the quantities
satisfactory explanation of such possession. 97 In effect, provided for in Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425. 106 Thus,
finding neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in
the present case, appellant’s possession of 591.81 kilograms
of marijuana in Criminal Case No. 15800-R, does not merit
capital punishment but only the lesser penalty of reclusion
perpetua.

The trial court imposed a fine on appellant in the sum of One

Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00), without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency. The imposition of a fine is
mandatory in cases of conviction of possession of illegal
drugs. This being within the limits allowed by the law, the
amount of the fine must be sustained. All these sanctions
might not remedy all the havoc wrought by prohibited drugs
on the moral fiber of our society, especially the youth. 107 But
these penalties should warn peddlers of prohibited drugs that
they cannot ply their trade in our streets with impunity.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Baguio City, Branch 6, in Criminal Case No. 15800-R,
convicting appellant MODESTO TEE alias "ESTOY" TEE of
violation of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The
fine of ONE MILLION (P1,000,000.00) PESOS imposed on him
is sustained. Appellant is likewise directed to pay the costs of
suit.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban,

Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-
Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna,
JJ., concur.