SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 185379. November 27, 2009.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , appellee, vs . ZENAIDA QUEBRAL y

MATEO, FERNANDO LOPEZ y AMBUS and MICHAEL SALVADOR y
JORNACION , appellants.

DECISION

ABAD , J : p

This case is about the requirement of authentication of seized prohibited drugs

and the conduct of warrantless search of a suspect by the roadside based on probable
cause.
The Facts and the Case
The provincial prosecutor of Bulacan charged the accused Zenaida Quebral,
Eusebio Quebral, Fernando Lopez, and Michael Salvador before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, in Criminal Case 3331-M-2002 with violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
At the trial of this case, the prosecution presented PO3 Cecilio Galvez of the
police force of Balagtas, Bulacan, who testi ed that at 7:00 p.m. on September 7, 2002,
the Chief of the Drug Enforcement Unit called him and other police of cers to a brie ng
regarding a police informer's report that two men and a woman on board an owner type
jeep with a speci c plate number would deliver shabu, a prohibited drug, on the
following day at a Petron Gasoline Station in Balagtas to Michael Salvador, a drug
pusher in the police watch list. 1
After a short brie ng on the morning of September 8, 2002, PO3 Galvez and six
other police of cers went to the North Luzon Expressway Balagtas Exit at Burol 2nd,
watching out for the owner type jeep mentioned. They got there at around 7:45 a.m.
Since the informer did not give the exact time of the delivery of shabu, the police
of cers staked out the expressway exit until late afternoon. At around 4:00 p.m., such a
jeep, bearing the reported plate number and with two men and a woman on board,
came out of the Balagtas Exit. Galvez identi ed the two men as accused Eusebio
Quebral, who drove the jeep, and accused-appellant Fernando Lopez and the woman as
accused-appellant Zenaida Quebral. The police trailed the jeep as it proceeded to the
town proper of Balagtas and entered a Petron gas station along the McArthur Highway.
AaSIET

After a few minutes, a Tamaraw FX arrived from which accused-appellant

Michael Salvador alighted. He walked towards the jeep and talked to accused Zenaida
Quebral, who then handed a white envelope to him. On seeing this, PO3 Galvez, who was
watching from about 15 meters in a tinted car, signaled his back-up team to move. The
police of cers alighted from their vehicles and surrounded the jeep. Galvez took the
envelope from Michael, opened it, and saw ve plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance which he believed was shabu.
The Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory Of ce later examined the substance
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 and submitted a chemistry report, 2 stating that it was shabu or methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a prohibited drug.
Appellants denied having committed the crime, claiming only that PO3 Galvez
and his fellow police officers merely framed them up.
On March 18, 2004 the RTC found all four accused guilty of the crime charged
and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a ne of P5
million.
On May 20, 2005, while the Court of Appeals (CA) was reviewing the case on
appeal in CA-G.R. CR-HC 01997, accused Eusebio Quebral died, prompting it to dismiss
the case against him. On February 13, 2008, the CA rendered judgment, 3 entirely
affirming the decision of the RTC. The remaining accused appealed to this Court.
The Issues Presented
Appellants basically raise two issues for this Court's resolution:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in not excluding the evidence of the seized shabu
on the ground that, having illegally arrested the accused, the police of cers'
subsequent search of their persons incident to such arrest was also illegal; and

2. Whether or not the prosecution presented ample proof of appellants' guilt

beyond reasonable doubt.

The Rulings of the Court

One . The accused claim that since the police did not have valid ground to arrest
them, their subsequent search of them was illegal and the evidence of the seized shabu
cannot be admitted in evidence against them. With the exclusion of the seized drugs,
there would not be proof that they were passing them.
The accused-appellants invoke the rule that a person may be arrested even
without a warrant only a) if he is caught in the act of committing a crime, b) if he has
just committed a crime and the arresting of cer pursued him, or c) if he escaped from
a legal con nement. 4 But in the rst two instances, the of cer must have personal
knowledge of the facts underlying the arrest. The target person's observable acts must
clearly spell a crime. If no crime is evident from those acts, no valid arrest can be made.
An informant whispering to the police of cer's ear that the person walking or standing
on the street has committed or is committing a crime will not do. The arresting of cer
must himself perceive the manifestations of a crime. 5 ETIHCa

The accused-appellants point out that in this case the police of cers cannot say
that what they saw from a distance constituted a crime. Two men and a woman arrived
on board a jeep at the gas station. A third man approached the jeep, spoke to the
woman and she handed him a folded white envelope that appeared to contain
something. These acts do not constitute a crime per se. Consequently, their arrest at
this point was illegal. The subsequent search of their persons, not being based on a
valid arrest, was itself illegal.
But, actually, it was more of a search preceding an arrest. The police of cers had
information that two men and a woman on board an owner type jeep would arrive in
Balagtas and hand over a consignment of shabu at a gas station in town to a known
drug dealer whose name was on the police watch list. When these things unfolded
before their eyes as they watched from a distance, the police came down on those
persons and searched them, resulting in the discovery and seizure of a quantity of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 shabu in their possession. In such a case, the search is a valid search justifying the
arrest that came after it.
This Court held in People v. Bagista 6 that the NARCOM of cers had probable
cause to stop and search all vehicles coming from the north at Acop, Tublay, Benguet,
in view of the con dential information they received from their regular informant that a
woman tting the description of the accused would be bringing marijuana from up
north. They likewise had probable cause to search her belongings since she tted the
given description. In such a case, the warrantless search was valid and, consequently,
any evidence obtained from it is admissible against the accused.
As the lower court aptly put it in this case, the law enforcers already had an
inkling of the personal circumstances of the persons they were looking for and the
criminal act they were about to commit. That these circumstances played out in their
presence supplied probable cause for the search. The police acted on reasonable
ground of suspicion or belief supported by circumstances suf ciently strong in
themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that a crime has been committed or is
about to be committed. 7 Since the seized shabu resulted from a valid search, it is
admissible in evidence against the accused.
It would have been impractical for the police to apply with the appropriate court
for a search warrant since their suspicion found factual support only at the moment
accused Eusebio Quebral, Fernando Lopez, and Zenaida Quebral rendezvoused with
Michael Salvador at the Petron gas station for the hand over of the drugs. An
immediate search was warranted since they would have gone away by the time the
police could apply for a search warrant. 8 The drugs could be easily transported and
concealed with impunity. 9
The case of People v. Aminnudin 1 0 cannot apply to this case. In Aminnudin, the
informant gave the police the name and description of the person who would be
coming down from a ship the following day carrying a shipment of drugs. In such a
case, the Court held that the police had ample time to seek a search warrant against the
named person so they could validly search his luggage. In the present case, all the
information the police had about the persons in possession of the prohibited drugs
was that they were two men and a woman on board an owner type jeep. A search
warrant issued against such persons could be used by the police to harass practically
anyone. EIDTAa

Two . The accused-appellants point out that the testimony of PO3 Galvez cannot
support their conviction since it does not bear the corroboration of the other of cers
involved in the police operation against them. But the failure of these other of cers did
not weaken the prosecution evidence. The lone declaration of an eyewitness is
suf cient to convict if, as in this case, the court nds the same credible. 1 1 Credibility
goes into a person's integrity, to the fact that he is worthy of belief, 1 2 and does not
come with the number of witnesses. 1 3
The accused-appellants also point out that, since the chemist who examined the
seized substance did not testify in court, the prosecution was unable to establish the
indispensable element of corpus delicti. But this claim is unmeritorious. This Court has
held that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drug cases is an
insuf cient cause for acquittal. 1 4 The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases
constitutes the dangerous drug itself. This means that proof beyond doubt of the
identity of the prohibited drug is essential. 1 5
Besides, corpus delicti has nothing to do with the testimony of the laboratory
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 analyst. In fact, this Court has ruled that the report of an of cial forensic chemist
regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity in its
preparation. Corollarily, under Section 44 of Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in
of cial records made in the performance of of cial duty are prima facie evidence of the
facts they state. 1 6 Therefore, the report of Forensic Chemical Of cer Sta. Maria that
the ve plastic sachets PO3 Galvez gave to her for examination contained shabu is
conclusive in the absence of evidence proving the contrary. At any rate, as the CA
pointed out, the defense agreed during trial to dispense with the testimony of the
chemist and stipulated on his findings. 1 7

Parenthetically, the accused-appellants raised their objection to the police

chemist's report only on appeal when such objection should have been made when the
prosecution offered the same in evidence. They may, thus, be considered to have
waived their objection to such report. 1 8 The familiar rule in this jurisdiction is that the
inadmissibility of certain documents, if not urged before the court below, cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal. 1 9
The accused-appellants take advantage of PO3 Galvez's testimony that they
conducted their operation on September 2, 2002, the date that the informant gave
them, and that the following day was September 8, 2002 2 0 to attack his credibility. But
inconsistency is trivial and appears to be a pure mistake. Lapses like this even enhance
the truthfulness of the testimony of a witness as they erase any suspicion of a
rehearsed declaration. 2 1 Besides, PO3 Galvez corrected this mistake on cross-
examination. He said that their informant gave them his tip at 7:00 p.m. of September 7,
2002. 2 2
Finally, the accused-appellants contend that the prosecution evidence failed to
show compliance with the requirements of law for handling evidence. But, as has been
held in a recent case, 2 3 failure to comply strictly with those requirements will not
render the seizure of the prohibited drugs invalid for so long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the con scated items are properly preserved by the apprehending
of cers. Besides, the accused-appellants did not raise it before the trial court, hence,
they cannot raise it for the first time on appeal. 2 4
ECaSIT

The CA and the RTC gave credence to the testimony of PO3 Galvez and this Court
nds no reason for disagreement. His narration was clear and candid. On the other
hand, the accused-appellants' claim of a "frame-up" was easy to concoct and so has
been the common line of defense in most cases involving violations of the Dangerous
Drugs Act. 2 5 Such defense requires strong and convincing evidence which the
accused-appellants failed to satisfy.
As the trial court correctly observed, the accused-appellants failed to provide any
reason why of all the people plying through the roads they had taken, the police chose
to frame them up for the crime. They also failed to explain why the police would plant
such huge amount of shabu if a small quantity would be suf cient to send them to jail.
2 6 No arresting of cer would plant such quantity of shabu solely to incriminate the
accused who have not been shown to be of good financial standing. 2 7
WHEREFORE , the Court DENIES the appeal and AFFI RMS the decision of the
Court of Appeals dated February 13, 2008 and of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos
dated March 18, 2004.
SO ORDERED .
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Carpio, Leonardo-de Castro, Brion and Del Castillo, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Exhibit "D," records, p. 114.

2. Exhibit "C," id. at 116.

3. Rollo, p. 2.

4. Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Section 5.

5. People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595, 645 (1999), Concurring Opinion of J. Panganiban.
6. G.R. No. 86218, September 18, 1992, 214 SCRA 63.

7. People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868, 881 (1998).

8. People v. Court of First Instance of Rizal, Br. IX, Quezon City, 189 Phil. 75, 90 (1980); citing
Caroll v. United States, 267 US 131 (1924).
9. Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 263, 278 (2002).

10. G.R. No. L-74869, July 6, 1988, 163 SCRA 402.

11. People of the Philippines v. Coscos, 424 Phil. 886, 900 (2002).
12. Civil Service Commission v. Belagan, 483 Phil. 601, 616 (2004).

13. People v. Hayahay, 345 Phil. 69, 81 (1997).

14. People v. Cervantes, G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 762, 781; citing People v.
Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 570, 586-587.
15. Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632.

16. People v. Bandang, supra note 14; citing People v. Chua-Uy, 384 Phil. 70, 93-94 (2000).
17. TSN, February 21, 2003, p. 4.
18. Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 402 Phil. 498, 509 (2001); citing Chua v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109840, January 21, 1999, 301 SCRA 356, 362.
19. People v. Bandang, supra note 14, at 587.

20. TSN, February 7, 2003, pp. 2-3.

21. People v. Verano, 332 Phil. 599, 611 (1996).

22. TSN, February 7, 2003, p. 7.

23. People v. Daria, G.R. No. 186138, September 11, 2009; citing People v. Agulay, G.R. No.
181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 595.

24. People v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621, 634.
25. People v. Velasco, 322 Phil. 146, 153 (1996).

26. CA rollo, p. 25.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 27. People v. Uy, 392 Phil. 773, 795 (2000).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com