PEOPLE vs.

DEQUINA
Facts: Herein respondents, Dequina, Jundoc and Jingabo were charged under the provisions of RA 6425 (Dangerous
Drugs act of 1972) as amended by RA 7659, for selling distributing and transporting several packs of marijuana weighing
approximately 11,000 grams each 3 packs.
The arrest took place at Tondo Manila when PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco was instructed that there would be 1
male and 2 female coming from Baguio to deliver an unknown quantity of marijuana. At around 6am in the designated
place, the police officers saw 3 individual heading towards the pier, suspecting that the said persons were the one on the
look-out; the police officers trailed them until they were noticed by the 3 individual prompting them to run and dropped the
bag revealing accidentally the dried marijuana. But they were still got arrested.
In the defense of the appellant, Dequina, she said that she was invited by a women name Sally to join KMU, a leftist
group. She was then ordered by Sally to invite 2 more friends to accompany her in their journey in delivering a bag to
Manila. Thinking of backing out, she was threatened that something bad will happen to her child if she refused in Sallys
heeding. She was told that she have to fetch some bags, together with her 2 friends, in Pampangga. After they have
received the bag, they headed bound to manila, where they got arrested.
Issue: If Dequina acted in irresistible fear in transporting the illegal drugs, thus exempting her from criminal liabilities? *Is
the arrest legal?*
Held: No. Dequina should be convicted.
The force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will
but against his will. The compulsion must be of such of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused for
escape or self-defense in equal combat. A threat to future is not enough. It is simply contemporary to human experience
that the people behind the shipment would entrust the same to an unknowing and uncertain person such as Dequina and
the other two. There was conspiracy in the facts, not directly but it can be deduced from the mode or manner it was
perpetrated.
*The arrest is legal the accused was caught in flagrante delicto, their warrantless search was incidental to their lawful
arrest.*
The quantity of marijuana involved in this case weighs 32,995 grams, hence, the applicable penalty is reclusion perpetua
to death. Since the imposable penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, the rules for the application of indivisible
penalties under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code should be applied. As there is neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstance in the commission of the crime, the RTC correctly imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.Dequina
et al is found guilty.