THIRD DIVISION wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly transport 1.

1 kilos of Marijuana dried

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, The lower court established her guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the
vs. basis of the prosecution's evidence as follows:
ANITA CLAUDIO Y BAGTANG, accused-appellant.
To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution offered the following
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. document and testimonial evidence as follows: Exhibit "A" Letter request
for Examination of suspected marijuana dried leaves weighing
Romeo C. Alinea for accused-appellant. approximately 1.1 kilos dated July 25, 1981; "B" plastic container; "B- 1"-
marijuana contained in the plastic container; "B-1-a"—another plastic
container; "C"—Chemistry Report No. D-668-81;"C-1" Findings: Positive
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: for marijuana; "D,","D-1," "D-2"and "D-3; "E" and "E-1" photographs of
accused with Pat. Daniel Obiña and Pauline Tiongco showing the
This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of marijuana, "F"—Victory Liner Ticket No. 84977;"G"—Sworn Statement of
Olongapo City, Branch 73 finding the accused Anita Claudio y Bagtang Pat. Daniel Obiña, "H" Request for Field Test on suspected marijuana
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 4, Rep. Act No. 6425 from accused by P/Lt. Antonio V. Galindo;"H-1"—date of of the request;
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended) and sentencing her to serve "L"—Certificate of Field Test dated July 22, 1981; "B-2" and "B-2a"
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of P 20,000.00, and to pay additional Wrapping paper; and the testimonies of witnesses of the
the costs. prosecution, Theresa Ann Bugayong; Pat. Daniel Obiño, Cpl. Paulino
Tiongco, Cpl. Ernesto Abello and Sgt. Leoncio Bagang.
The information filed against the accused alleged:
Theresa Ann Bugayong—22 years old, single, Forensic Chemist and a
That on or about the 21st day of July 1981, in the City of Olongapo, resident of 1150 Sampaloc, Metro Manila testified that she received a
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- request from the Task Force Bagong Buhay, Olongapo City, dated July
named ACCUSED without being lawfully authorized, did then and there 25, 1981, on specimen marijuana submitted for examination. The

Page 1 of 7
specimen consisted of 900 grams of suspected dried marijuana flowering was a wooven buri bag made of plastic containing some vegetables. The
tops wrapped in a newspaper placed in a plastic bag with a marking "MB act of the accused putting her bag behind Pat. Obiña's seat aroused his
Store" (Exh. "B"). suspicion and made him felt (sic) nervous. With the feeling that there was
some unusual, he had the urge to search the woven plastic bag. But it
The examination conducted by her proved to be positive for marijuana. was only at San Fernando, Pampanga when he was able to go to the
After her examination, she prepared Chemistry Report No. D-668-81 bag. He inserted one of his fingers in a plastic bag located at the bottom
dated July 29,1981 (Exhs. "C" and "C-l"). She conducted three of the woven bag and smelt marijuana. The plastic woven bag appearing
eliminations; microscopic examination, the duguenoi levine test and to contain camote tops on the top has a big bundle of plastic of marijuana
thirdly, the confirmatory examination of thin layer chromatographic test. at the bottom. He could recognize the smell of marijuana because he was
The said specimen was submitted to them by OIC Danilo Santiago, a assigned at that time at the ANTI-NARCOTICS Unit. He did not, however,
representative of the CANU, Olongapo City. do anything after he discovered that there was marijuana inside the
plastic bag of the accused until they reached Olongapo City and the
The second witness for the prosecution was Daniel Obiña, 37 years old, accused alighted from the bus in front of the Caltex Gasoline Station in
married, policeman and residing at 34 Corpuz St., East Tapinac, Sta. Rita. Right after the accused alighted from the bus, policeman Obina
Olongapo City. Obiña testified that he has been a member of the INP, intercepted her and showed her his Id Identifying himself as a policeman
since 1970 up to the present. He was assigned in June, 1972 at the and told her he will search her bag because of the suspicion that she was
Investigation Division as operative. His job then was among other things carrying marijuana inside said bag. In reply, accused told him, "Please go
to follow up reports in their office, recover stolen items and apprehend with me, let us settle this at home." However, the witness did not heed
suspects. On July 21,1981, he was on Detached Service with the ANTI- her plea and instead handcuffed her right hand and with her, boarded a
NARCOTICS Unit; and that on that date, he came from Baguio City and tricycle right away and brought the suspect to the police headquarters
arrived in Olongapo City at about 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon having left with her bag appearing to contain vegetables.
Baguio at about 8:30 o'clock in the morning. He took the Victory Liner in
going back to Olongapo City. His family lives in Baguio City. On board the At the police headquarters Investigation Section, the bag was searched in
Victory Liner, he was seated on the second seat at the back. While he the presence of Investigator Cpl. Tiongco; Pat. Obiña, the accused and
was thus seated, suspect Anita Claudio boarded the same bus and took Sgt. Leoncio Bagang. Inside the plastic bag was found a big bundle of
the seat in front of him after putting a bag which she was carrying at the plastic containing marijuana weighing about one kilo. Witness stated that
back of the seat of Obiña. The bag placed by suspect behind his seat he could detect marijuana even before the application of chemicals

Page 2 of 7
because of one year and a half assignment with the CANU. After the the bag right behind his seat instead of placing it in front of her or beside
marijuana was taken from the bag of the accused, photographs were her seat. Witness Obiña became suspicious and his suspicion was
taken of the accused and the marijuana confiscated from her possession confirmed when they reached San Fernando, Pampanga, after he
with Pat. Obiña and that of Investigator Tiongco, accused and himself checked the buri bag. The bus stopped at said town to load some
Identified photographs shown to him in open Court. (Exhs. "D," "D-l," "D- gasoline. Witness inserted one of his fingers inside the buri bag and
2" and "D-3"). Witness was likewise shown a plastic bag of marijuana thereafter smelt marijuana. He confirmed his testimony on direct that
contained in a plastic container (Exhs. "B," "B-1" and "B-1 -a") and when witness confronted accused he was invited to go with her in order
Identified it as the one confiscated from the accused and pointed to his to settle the matter to which he refused. Accused further testified that
initials on the newspaper wrapping which also shows the date and time, from the time the accused placed her bag behind his seat from Baguio
although the wrapper at the time he testified appeared to be soiled City, he felt so nervous and had to take his medicine at the Tarlac
already. The marijuana was allegedly still fresh when confiscated. Station. It was only after having taken his medicine that his apprehension
was contained and thus was able to insert his right hand inside the buri
To prove further that the accused transported the confiscated marijuana bag in San Fernando, Pampanga. His fingers reached the very bottom of
from Baguio City to Olongapo City, witness Identified Victory Liner Ticket the bag. He Identified his sworn statement regarding this incident given
No. 684977 which was confiscated from the accused and for on July 21, 1981 which is Exhibit "G." Witness likewise Identified accused
Identification purposes, the witness presented the body number of the Anita Claudio in open court.
bus he wrote at the back of the ticket which is "309" (Exhs. "F" and "F-l").
Regarding himself, he did not pay his fare from Baguio City because as a Paulino Tiongco, 52 years old, married and resident of 31 Canada St.,
policeman, he used his badge and a free ride. East Bajac Bajac, Olongapo City, testified that as a policeman on the
afternoon of July 21, 1981, he was inside the Investigation Division of the
On cross-examination, witness stated that he went to Baguio City on July Police Station, Olongapo City. As Duty Investigator, between 1:45 and
15,1981 and underwent treatment of his heart while he was there. He 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, Pat. Daniel Obiña arrived
was given a furlough for medical treatment. He stayed in Baguio City for at the Police Station with a woman and Identified her in the courtroom as
about five days and returned to Olongapo City on July 21, 1981. Prior to Anita Claudio. Pat. Obiña reported to him that he apprehended Anita
July 21, 1981, witness never knew the accused, and the first time he saw Claudio inside the Victory Liner bus for possession of marijuana dried
her was in Baguio when she boarded the same Victory Liner he took. leaves. The marijuana leaves were contained in a buri bag with some
When the accused who was bringing with her a woven plastic bag placed vegetables such as camote tops, bananas and some other vegetables.

Page 3 of 7
The marijuana was placed in a plastic wrapper with the name National marijuana dried leaves. As requested by Lt. Galindo he conducted a field
Book Store colored black and white. Witness Identified the wrapper (Exh. test on this marijuana which he received from Lt. Galindo, as evidenced
"B-2"). The bag contained the markings of Pat. Obiña which are his by a request signed by him dated July 22,1981 (Exh. "H").
initials, (Exhs. "B-2-a"), and numbers 210781 representing the date which
was placed by Pat. Obiña after Cpl. Tiongco examined the suspected In connection with the field test conducted by him on the specimen, he
marijuana. prepared a Certificate of Fleld Test dated July 22,1981 (Exhs. "I"). The
Certificate of Field Test indicated the presence of tetra-hydrocannabinol
After examining and seeing the marijuana together with the vegetables, (THC), an active substance that can be only be found in marijuana, a
he interviewed apprehending officer Obiña and reduced his statements in prohibited drug. Cpl. Abello Identified a plastic bag of marijuana received
writing. Cpl. Tiongco Identifled the sworn statement of Obiña (Exh. "G"). from Lt. Galindo which he later give to CIC Danilo Santiago, the Evidence
He also interviewed accused Anita Claudio who was all the while inside Custodian, for the latter to bring the specimen to the PC Crime
the Investigation room seated on a chair. After appraising her of her Laboratory.
constitutional rights, he asked the accused whether she was willing to
give her written statements to which the accused refused. Hence, no The last witness for the prosecution was Leoncio Bagang, 40 years old,
statements were taken of her. However, pictures were taken inside the married, residing at No. 27 Jones St., East Tapinac, Olongapo City, a
investigation room. Exhs. "D" and "E," series which were already policeman of Olongapo City, assigned with Police Station "21." He has
previously Identified by Pat. Obiña, Witness Identified the persons been a policeman since 1966 up to the present. In July, 1981, he was
appearing in the pictures as that of Pat. Obiña and the accused and also then assigned at the Patrol Division and his duty was to patrol the city
of himself. Thereafter, the marijuana contained in the plastic bag were proper from Magsaysay Drive up to east Bajac Bajac.
turned over to Lt. Galindo and Anita Claudio was detained.
He narrated that on July 21,1981, between the hours of 1:00 and 2:00
Ernesto Abello, 41 years old, married and residing at No. 29 Alba Street, o'clock in the afternoon, he was at the Caltex Gasoline Station, East
East Tapinac, Olongapo City, testified he was since March 1972 a Bajac Bajac, Olongapo City along Rizal Avenue. He was then on duty
policeman and was stationed at Police Station 21, Olongapo City, patrol using a motorcycle. While he was at the said place, he saw Pat.
Metrodiscom. However, in 1981, he was already assigned to the CANU Obiña alighted from the Victory Liner bus ordering somebody to alight
General Anti-NARCOTICS Unit. On July 22, 1981, he reported for work at from the same bus. When he heard Pat. Obiña he approached him and
the CANU and received from Lt. Galindo more than a kilo of suspected asked him what was happening. Pat. Obiña told him he apprehended a

Page 4 of 7
certain woman possessing dried marijuana. The woman was still then not a signature, stands for Daniel Obiña. After the testimony of Leoncio
inside the bus. Pat. Obiña then brought the woman to the police Bagang, the prosecution rested its case. (Rollo, pp. 42-47)
department who was bringing with her a buri bag. They boarded a
tricycle, the woman riding inside the tricycle while Pat. Obiña sat behind Accused Claudio raised the following assignments of errors in this
the driver. He then followed in his motorcycle the said tricycle to police appeal:
station. He went inside the Investigation Section of the Police Station and
he was there when Pat. Obiña reported to Cpl. Tiongco his apprehension I
of the woman possessing marijuana. He saw the marijuana for the first
time inside the Investigation Section placed in a buri bag covered with CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 4, ART. II OF R.A. 6425 IS IMPROPER
newspaper. He witnessed the taking out of the marijuana from inside the IF ONE OR SOME OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE IS OR ARE
bag by Pat. Obiña in the presence of Cpl. Tiongco and the woman or the ABSENT.
accused in this case, and himself. Policeman Bagang Identified the
accused in open Court. When asked about the nature of the marijuana II
when it was brought out from the bag, he said that the marijuana was
dried but not well dried. Aside from the marijuana inside the buri bag, CONVICTION CAN NOT BE HAD UNDER SECTION 4, ART. II OF R.A.
there were vegetables and bananas, Witness Identified in open Court, the 6425 IF THE ALLEGED BUYMAN WAS NOT PRESENTED TO
marijuana he saw found in the buri bag of the accused. His means of TESTIFY.
Identification was the signature of Pat. Obiña, (Exh. "B-1"). He likewise
Identified a newspaper wrapping which was already torn. III

While in the Investigation Division, witness Bagang heard the accused's APPELLANTS CONVICTION FOR DELIVERY (SEC. 4, ART II, OF R.A.
answer to Cpl. Tiongco's questions that she was going to deliver the 6424) IS WRONG BECAUSE SOME MATERIAL FACTS WERE
marijuana to Sta. Rita. He, however, did not linger long at the OVERLOOKED AND NOT CONSIDERED IN FAVOR OF APPELLANT.
investigation Division. After he saw the marijuana and heard the answer (Rollo, p. 91)
of the accused to Cpl. Tiongcos question the place of delivery of the
marijuana, he left the police station. Witness likewise Identified an initial
DO-21-07-81 already marked as Exhibit "B-2." DO which is an initial, and

Page 5 of 7
The accused alleges that she is only liable, at the most, for possession The accused also alleges that before the completion of delivery, the
under Sec. 8, Art. II of Rep. Act No. 6425 and not for violating Sec. 4 of intention of the possessor is unknown.
the same Act.
This allegation is also unavailing. It is undisputed that Claudio had in her
The latter section, Sec. 4 provides: possession 1.1 kilos of marijuana. This is a considerable quantity. As
held in the case of People v. Toledo, (140 SCRA 259, 267) "the
Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery Distribution and Transportation of possession of such considerable quantity as three plastic bags of
Prohibited Drugs.—The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine marijuana leaves and seeds coupled with the fact that he is not a user of
ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed prohibited drugs cannot indicate anything except the intention of the
upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, accused to sell, distribute and deliver said marijuana.
deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport
any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. If The accused next contends the warrantless search, seizure and
the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a prohibited drug involved apprehension as unlawful.
in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of
a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed. The applicable provisions on this issue are found in the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure.
Claudio contends that there was no delivery as there was no recipient of
the prohibited drugs. Therefore, she may not be convicted under Sec. 4 Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the said Rules provides:
of Rep. Act No. 6425.
.. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
The contention is without merit. A closer perusal of the subject provision person:
shows that it is not only delivery which is penalized but also the sale,
administration, distribution and transportation of probihited drugs. Claudio (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
was caught transporting 1.1 kilos of marijuana, thus the lower court did actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
not err in finding her guilty of violating Sec. 4.
xxx xxx xxx

Page 6 of 7
Meanwhile, its Rule 126, Sec. 12 provides: reason from the records why the prosecution witnesses should fabricate
their testimonies and implicate appellant in such a serious crime (See
Section 12. Search incident to lawful arrest.— A person lawfully arrested People v. Bautista, 147 SCRA 500).
may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used
as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant. (12a) The accused testified that she was not on that bus that came from Baguio
City but rather she was in Olongapo City all that time. She alleged that
Appellant Claudio was caught transporting prohibited drugs. Pat. Daniel she was arrested by Pat. Obiña for no reason at all.
Obiña 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 In the case at bar, alibi does not deserve much credit as it was
arrest is in itself lawful. (Nolasco v. Pano, 147 SCRA 509). Therefore, established only by the accused herself (People v. De la Cruz, 148 SCRA
there was no infirmity in the seizure of the 1.1 kilos of marijuana. 582).

The accused takes inconsistent positions in her appellant's brief. At first, Moreover, it is a well-established rule that alibi cannot prevail over
she does not deny having had with her marijuana at the time of her positive testimony (People v. De La Cruz, supra).
arrest. Instead, she claims that she should just be guilty of possession. In
a complete turnabout, in the latter portion of said brief, she claims that the WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.
evidence against her were mere fabrications and the marijuana allegedly
found in her possession was only planted. SO ORDERED.

We have carefully examined the records of the case and we find no Fernan (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.
ground to alter the trial court's findings and appreciation of the evidence
presented.

Credence is accorded to the prosecution's evidence, more so as it

Page 7 of 7