People V Hindoy PDF

6/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 357
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Hindoy
*
G.R. No. 132662. May 10, 2001.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ENRIQUE HINDOY and BELLA B. NEGROSA, accused-
appellants.
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Evidence; Witnesses;

Police Officers; It is doctrinally settled that the absence of evidence
as to an improper motive strongly tends to sustain the conclusion
that none existed and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and
credit; Police officers are presumed to have performed their duties
regularly, that they acted within the bounds of their authority,
unless the contrary is shown.—After poring over the evidence on
record, we are fully convinced that the culpability of ENRIQUE
and BELLA for the crimes charged was established beyond
reasonable doubt. The testimony of witnesses for the prosecution
was not only unwavering but consistent with usual police
practice. Furthermore, they absolutely had no ill-motive to
incriminate and testify against ENRIQUE and BELLA. It is
doctrinally settled that the absence of evidence as to an improper
motive strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that none existed
and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.
Moreover, being police officers, they are presumed to have
performed their duties regularly, that they acted within the
bounds of their authority, unless the contrary is shown. No
controverting fact was established by ENRIQUE and BELLA, so
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be given full
faith and credence.
Same; Same; Same; Illegal Sale of Prohibited Drugs;
Elements.—The evidence for the prosecution fully proved beyond
reasonable doubt the elements necessary to successfully prosecute
a case for the illegal sale of a prohibited drug, namely, (a) identity
of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and
(b) the delivery of the things sold and the payment therefor.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Searches and Seizures; The
warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspect’s
lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b60540e13ee56c392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17
include the premises or surrounding under his immediate control.

—Moreover, under the circumstances, it was the duty of the police
officers to conduct a more thorough search of the premises after a
successful entrapment, then make the necessary arrest of the
suspects and seizure of suspected contraband. The search, being
incident to a lawful arrest, was valid notwithstanding the absence
of a war-
______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
693
VOL. 357, MAY 10, 2001 693
People vs. Hindoy
rant. In fact, the warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to

a suspect’s lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the one
arrested to include the premises or surrounding under his
immediate control.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Possession of marijuana is
absorbed in the sale thereof, except where the seller is further
apprehended in possession of another quantity of the prohibited
drugs not covered by or included in the sale and which are
probably intended for some future dealings or use by the seller.—
Likewise, the trial court did not err when it convicted ENRIQUE
and BELLA of illegal possession of prohibited drugs punishable
under Section 8 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. In People v.
Lacerna, possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale thereof,
except where the seller is further apprehended in possession of
another quantity of the prohibited drugs not covered by or
included in the sale and which are probably intended for some
future dealings or use by the seller.
Same; Same; Same; Presumptions; Denials; Things which a
person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are presumed
to be owned by him, and bare denial is insufficient to overcome
this legal presumption.—The records, indeed, reveal that aside
from selling one block of marijuana to the arresting officers,
accused-appellants were also caught in possession of another
12.04 kilograms of marijuana in twelve individually wrapped
blocks, hidden in a bag under a table in their house. Their
possession thereof gives rise to a disputable presumption under
Section 3[j], Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, that they were the
owners of the same. Said provision states as follows: Sec. 3.

Disputable Presumptions.—The following presumptions are
satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and
overcome by other evidence: x x x (j) x x x, that things which a
person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned
by him; The uncorroborated assertion of ENRIQUE and BELLA
that the abaca bag belongs to a certain Marlyn who left it in their
care amounts to a bare denial which, by itself, is insufficient to
overcome this legal presumption.
APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Pasig City, Br. 68.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.
694

People vs. Hindoy
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
This is an appeal by accused-appellants Enrique Hindoy

(hereafter ENRIQUE) and1 Bella B. Negrosa (hereafter
BELLA) from the decision of 10 November 1994 of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 68, in Criminal
Case No. 2674-D and Criminal Case No. 2675-D, finding
them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
violating Sections 4 and 8, Article II of Republic Act No.
6425, as amended by Section 13 of Republic Act No. 7659,
and sentencing them in each case to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, with the attending accessory penalties,
and to pay the costs of the suit.
In two separate informations dated 24 March 1994,
ENRIQUE and BELLA were charged with violation of
Section 8 and Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
amended, which were respectively docketed as Criminal
Case No. 2674-D and Criminal Case No. 2675-D. The
informations allege as follows:
Criminal Case No. 2674-D
That on or about the 18th day of March, 1994, in the Municipality

of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being
lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any prohibited
[drug], did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly

have in their possession and under their custody and control
12.04 kilograms of compressed dried flowering tops which is a
prohibited drug. 2
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 2675-D
That on or about the 18th day of March, 1994, in the

Municipality of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
without having been authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, de-
________________
1 Original Record (OR), 177-185; Rollo, 18-26. Per Judge Santiago G. Estrella.
2 OR, 1-2; Rollo, 5-6.
695
VOL. 357, MAY 10, 2001 695

People vs. Hindoy
liver and give away to another 1.01 kilogram of compressed dried

flowering tops (marijuana), a prohibited drug, in violation of the
above-cited law. 3
Contrary to law.
Based on the separate testimonies of PO3 Roberto Eugenio,

SPO4 Jose Antiojo, SPO1 Bayani Prianes, and SPO1 Angel
Cariaga, all of the Criminal Investigation Division of the
Mandaluyong Police, at around 2 a.m. on 18 March 1994, a
woman informant came to the station and reported that a
certain “Bella” of 248 Sto. Rosario St., Mandaluyong, would
be receiving a shipment of illegal drugs that day. On the
strength of that information, Antiojo organized a team that
would conduct a buy-bust operation. At around 3 a.m., the
team, headed by Antiojo himself and guided by the woman
informant, went to said address. Eugenio and Cariaga
acted as poseur-buyers, while SPO4 Rolando Cruz, SPO3
Antonio Nato, and Prianes served as backup. They knocked
on the door and BELLA’S live-in partner ENRIQUE opened
it. Eugenio said, “May bagong dating, kukuha kami (If
there’s new stuff, we’ll get some),” referring to marijuana.
ENRIQUE answered, “Meron” (Yes, there is) so Eugenio
gave him one P500.00 and five P100.00 marked bills. After
counting the money, ENRIQUE asked BELLA to get the
stuff. She complied and brought a brick of marijuana, with
an estimated weight of one kilogram, which was wrapped

in newspaper. ENRIQUE, in turn, handed it over to
Eugenio. That was when they identified themselves as
police officers. After giving the prearranged signal to the
backup operatives, he and Cariaga entered the house then
announced that they were going to conduct a search. Under
a table, they found a bag made of abaca containing twelve
more bricks of marijuana. The evidence was marked then
turned over to Prianes, who 4
transmitted the same to the
NBI for chemical analysis.
During the post-operation investigation, however,5
ENRIQUE and BELLA were not assisted by counsel.
______________
3 Id., 12-13; id., 3-4.

4 TSN, 20 July 1994, 3-19; OR, 204-221; TSN, 26 July 1994, 4-8; OR,
261-265; TSN, 27 July 1994, 3-9; OR, 284-291; TSN, 23 August 1994, 4-10;
OR, 321-351.
5 TSN, 26 July 1994, 9; OR, 266. See also TSN, 30 August 1994, 3.
696

People vs. Hindoy
Julieta C. Flores, Forensic Chemist II at the National

Bureau of Investigation, made a chemical analysis of the
seized evidence.
6
Her findings are contained in the
Certification dated 20 March 1994 that she prepared in
connection with the case. She found the specimens
submitted by SPO1 Prianes positive for marijuana. The
evidence consisted of (a) one block of compressed dried
flowering tops wrapped in newsprint paper weighing 1.01
kilograms; and (b) twelve blocks of compressed dried
flowering tops with a combined weight of 12.04 kilograms,
which were individually wrapped in newsprint paper and
bundled in a white plastic bag, which, in turn, was placed
in a green and white bag.
ENRIQUE and BELLA denied the accusations and
disclaimed the existence of the buy-bust operation.
According to BELLA, ENRIQUE arrived at her
apartment at around 10 p.m. on 17 March 1994 after
spending four days at his Aunt’s wake at Sapang Palay. He
drank two bottles of beer then went to sleep. Past 11 p.m.,
a certain Marilyn knocked at her door and left a bag, which
7
would be picked up at dawn by her neighbor Marites. On
cross-examination, however, she could not explain why she
never asked Marilyn, a stranger as far as she was

concerned, to just drop the bag at the 8place of Marites;
neither did she inquire about its contents.
Around 3 a.m. on 18 March 1994, she was awakened by
ENRIQUEZ brother Renato, who was knocking loudly and
asking her to open the door. This point was corroborated
9
by
Renato himself and a neighbor, Elino Corpes. She added
that when she opened the door, Antiojo entered the room,
looking for three boxes of marijuana. A while later, he
called his companions, Eugenio, Cariaga, and Prianes. She
and ENRIQUE were handcuffed, then the police began
searching the room. The police found the abaca bag left by
Marilyn, which turned out to be filled with marijuana. The
two were then taken to Antiojo’s office, but at 7 a.m., they
were detained at the
_____________
6 OR, 10.
7 TSN, 30 August 1994, 6-7.
8 TSN, 31 August 1994, 11-17; OR, 358-364.
9 TSN, 6 September 1994, 3-8; OR, 392-397; TSN, 11 October 1994, 3-4;
OR, 450-451.
697
VOL. 357, MAY 10, 2001 697

People vs. Hindoy
Mandaluyong Jail. At 11 a.m., a certain police officer

named Sta. Maria tried to transfer them to Bicutan. The
transfer was, however, rejected and their return to
Mandaluyong was ordered, apparently because they were
arrested without a warrant. BELLA then heard Sta. Maria
say that they would justify the arrest by making
10
it appear
that it was a result of a buy-bust operation.
ENRIQUE essentially corroborated what BELLA said.
He testified that he arrived at his girlfriend BELLA’S
house at around 10 p.m. on 17 March 1994 after attending
the wake of his paternal Aunt (whose name he cannot
recall) at Sapang Palay. He drank two bottles of beer before
sleeping and was awakened early in the morning by three
policemen who immediately placed him in handcuffs. They
started searching the room and found an abaca bag
supposedly containing marijuana. During the police
investigation, he was allegedly being forced to admit
ownership of the marijuana so that his sentence could be
lowered. He was taken to the CID detention cell and,
around noon, was brought to the Bicutan Narcotics Unit.

The police escorts, namely Prianes, a certain Sta. Maria,
and the arresting officers, were apparently berated because
they had no search and arrest warrants. Thus, they were
transferred to the Eastern Police Department in Pasig, and
in the morning, taken to Camp Crame where ENRIQUE
was 11threatened, blindfolded, and strangled with his own
belt. 12
In its decision of 10 November 1994, the trial court
decreed as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders

judgment finding accused ENRIQUE HINDOY and BELLA
NEGROSA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes
charged, and hereby imposes the following sentence:
1. In Criminal Case No. 2674-D, applying the provisions of

Sections 13 and 20 (should be 21) of Republic Act 7659,
and considering the amount of marijuana seized, the
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and a fine of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00);
_____________
10 TSN, 30 August 1994, 10-14.

11 TSN, 6 September 1994, 3-8; OR, 392-397.
12 Supra note 1.
698

People vs. Hindoy
2. In Criminal Case No. 2675-D, applying the

aforementioned provisions of Republic Act 7659, and
considering the amount of marijuana seized, the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA and a fine of FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).
The Dangerous Drugs Board is hereby ordered to send its

representative armed with the proper authority to receive from
this Court the subject marijuana for proper disposition within ten
(10) days from receipt hereof.
Costs against both accused.
SO ORDERED.
The trial court gave credence to the testimony of the police

officers who conducted the buy-bust operation, as
corroborated by forensics chemist Flores, and concluded
that “the circumstances present in these cases impressed

upon the Court that, indeed, there was a negotiation 13
conducted between the pushers and the poseur-buyers.” It
also considered the sworn statement of BELLA where she
said, “Sa kagustuhan kong masuportahan ang aking mga
anak sa una kong asawa na nasa mga magulang kong nasa
probinsiya ay pumayag akong tanggapin na pag-iwanan ng
nasabing bagay,” (“In my desire to support my children
from my first marriage who are living with my parents 14
in
the province, I agreed to safe-keep the said object.”)
ENRIQUE and 15
BELLA, through counsel, filed their
Notice of Appeal on 9 January 1995 but lodged 16
the same
with the Court of Appeals. In its Resolution of 20 June
1996, the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 17394,
dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, since their
cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as
clearly stated in Section 5(d), Article VIII of the
Constitution and pursuant to Supreme Court Circular No.
2-90, which does not allow “transfers of appeals
erroneously taken to the Supreme Court or to the Court of
Appeals to whichever of these Tribunals has appropriate
appellate jurisdiction.”
_______________
13 Decision, 5; OR, 181.

14 Paragraph 4, Kontra Salaysay, 23 March 1994.
15 Rollo, 33.
16 Per Associate Justice Salome A. Montoya; Jacinto and Asuncion, JJ.,
concurring.
699
VOL. 357, MAY 10, 2001 699

People vs. Hindoy
Sensing the urgency of17 rectifying such erroneous filing,

BELLA wrote a letter dated 8 October 1996 to the
Supreme Court, praying that she be allowed to appeal her
case to the Court. The case was docketed as UDK-12220.
On 4 June 1997, Atty. Liwayway J. Nazal de los Santos of
the Public
18
Attorney’s Office filed a Manifestation and
Motion, saying that BELLA “has a meritorious reason to
appeal her case” and praying that her appeal be allowed to
proceed “in the name of substantial and compassionate
justice.” For its
19
part, the Office of the Solicitor General, in
its Comment dated 10 September 1997, made the
following observations: (1) the dismissal of BELLA’S appeal
was a result of her counsel’s inadvertence, hence, it was a

dismissal based purely on a technicality; (2) counsel’s error
is not entirely implausible; and (3) BELLA’S life and
liberty were grievously at stake.
Taking these submissions
20
into consideration, the Court,
in its Resolution dated 22 October 1997, resolved to
consider BELLA’S appeal to the Court of Appeals as an
appeal to this Court; set aside the 20 June 1996 Resolution
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 17394,
dismissing BELLA’S appeal; and require the Court of
Appeals to elevate the records of the case to the Supreme
Court within twenty days from notice.
On 4 March 1998, the Court resolved to docket the
records of UDK-12220 as a regular appeal, which was
docketed as G.R. No. 132662. After the parties had
submitted their respective briefs, the Court consolidated
these two cases and declared that its earlier Resolution of
22 October 1997 also benefits accused-appellant
ENRIQUE. The dismissal21 of his appeal by the Court of
Appeals was thus vacated.
In their consolidated brief, ENRIQUE and BELLA made
the following assignment of errors:
_____________
17 Rollo of UDK-12220, 4-6.

18 Id., 18-20.
19 Rollo of UDK-12220, 33-38.
20 Id., 40-42.
21 Rollo of UDK-12220, 48; Rollo, 94.
700

People vs. Hindoy
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE SEARCH AND

ARREST OF THE TWO (2) ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
WITHOUT WARRANT TO FALL UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF
WARRANTLESS SEARCH, AN INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL
ARREST.
II
THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR

IN ADMITTING THE COMPRESSED MARIJUANA
FLOWERING TOPS ADUCED IN EVIDENCE BY THE

PROSECUTION.
In essence, ENRIQUE and BELLA maintain that they

could not have committed the crimes charged in the
informations because they were sleeping at the time said
crimes were allegedly perpetrated. Consequently, the
search conducted by the police officers was not incidental to
a lawful warrantless arrest. The confiscated contraband 22
was, therefore, inadmissible in evidence against them.
After poring over the evidence on record, we are fully
convinced that the culpability of ENRIQUE and BELLA for
the crimes charged was established beyond reasonable
doubt. The testimony of witnesses for the prosecution was
not only unwavering but consistent with usual police
practice. Furthermore, they absolutely had no ill-motive to
incriminate and testify against ENRIQUE and BELLA. It
is doctrinally settled that the absence of evidence as to an
improper motive strongly tends to sustain the conclusion
that none existed23
and that the testimony is worthy of full
faith and credit.
Moreover, being police officers, they are presumed to
have performed their duties regularly, that they acted
within 24the bounds of their authority, unless the contrary is
shown. No controverting
_____________
22 Appellant’s Brief, 7-15; Rollo, 48-56.

23 People v. Excija, 258 SCRA 424, 439-440 [1996]; People v. Abrecinoz,
281 SCRA 59, 72 [1997]; People v. Estares, 282 SCRA 524, 535 [1997].
24 People v. Magno, 296 SCRA 443, 450 [1998], citing People v. Ponsica,
230 SCRA 87 [1994].
701
VOL. 357, MAY 10, 2001 701

People vs. Hindoy
fact was established by ENRIQUE and BELLA, so the

testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be given full
faith and credence.
The main witness in this case is PO3 Eugenio, the
poseur-buyer. His credibility as a witness was never
impeached by the defense, and he was able to narrate in
detailed fashion the events that eventually led to the
apprehension and detention of ENRIQUE and BELLA.
Thus, he stated:
PROSECUTION:
xxx
Q: Mr. Witness, you in particular, what was your task?
A: I was assigned as poseur buyer, ma’m.
xxx
Q: In what particular place in Sto. Rosario did you go?
A: At No. 248 Sto. Rosario, ma’m.
xxx
Q: Whose house was that, if you know?
A: House of the accused, ma’m.
Q: Whose accused, there are two (2) accused?
A: Enrique Hindoy and Bella Negrosa, ma’m.
Q: Mr. Witness, upon arrival in the said place, what
happened, if any?
A: We knocked at the door, ma’m.
Q: Were you allowed entry in the said house?
A: When we knocked at the door, the two accused opened
the door, ma’m.
Q: Who among the accused opened the door?
A: Enrique, ma’m.
Q: What did you do in the said house?
A: I told Enrique, “May bagong dating, kukuha kami”, and
I gave the buy-bust money, ma’m.
Q: Who among the two of you, you and SPO1 Angel
Cariaga stated that “kukuha kami”?
A: I, myself, ma’m.
Q: What about Angel Cariaga, where was he at that time
when you said “kukuha kami.”
A: He was beside me, ma’m.
702

People vs. Hindoy
Q: Upon knowing the fact that you will get or buy what
was the reaction of Enrique?
A: No reaction, ma’m.
Q: Could you be more specific, Mr. Witness, when you
stated “kukuha kami”, to what you are referring to?

A: The stuff, ma’m.
Q: What in particular?
A: Marijuana, ma’m.
Q: Did you inform this to Enrique that you will buy
marijuana from him?
A: No, ma’m.
Q: What was the reason why you just stated “kukuha
kami”?
A: That is the common parlance in the practice, ma’m.
xxx
Q: You said that when you mentioned “kukuha kami”,
accused Enrique Hindoy did not react, what did he do,
if any?
A: He counted the money, ma’m.
Q: In your presence?
A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: After counting the money, what did he do next, if any?
A: He requested Bella to get the stuff, ma’m.
Q: Did Bella abide?
A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: And where did Bella go when you said that she abided?
A: She was also inside the house, ma’m.
Q: Was there a room or also [sic] in the living room?
A: There’s no room nor living room, ma’m. It’s only a small
house.
xxx
Q: And when you said Bella took the stuff, was it given to
you?
A: She gave it to Enrique, ma’m.
Q: And what did Enrique do with the stuff?
A: He gave it to me, ma’m.
xxx
Q: When Enrique gave you the block, what did you do if
any?
A: I looked at it, ma’m.
703
VOL. 357, MAY 10, 2001 703

People vs. Hindoy
Q: You mean you inspected the block?

A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: Where was it contained?
A: It was wrapped in a newspaper, ma’m.
Q: You said you inspected the stuff, what have you found
out?
A: It’s a marijuana, ma’m.
Q: More or less, how much is (sic) the contents of that one
whole brick?
A: One (1) brick is about a kilo, ma’m.
Q: Upon knowing that it was actually a marijuana
wrapped in a newspaper, what have you done, if any to
that marijuana?
A: I held it, ma’m.
Q: What happened next, if any?
A: Then I introduced myself as police officer, ma’m.
Q: What about SPO1 Cariaga, what did he do?
A: Together, we identified ourselves as police officers.
Q: Upon identification of yourselves as police officers,
what happened next, if any?
A: We entered the house, ma’m.
Q: The two of you entered the house?
A: Yes, ma’m.
Q: What other things have you done, if any?
A: We looked for the place where the stuff are being kept,
ma’m.
xxx
Q: You said that you started searching the place, what
have you found out during that search, if any?
A: We found one abaca bag, ma’m.
Q: Where was that abaca bag located?
A: Under the table, ma’m.
Q: Under the table of whom?
A: The table inside the house of the accused, ma’m.
xxx
Q: Upon inspection of the said bag, Mr. Witness, could you

describe to the Court what have you found out?
704

People vs. Hindoy
25
A: The bag contained another 12 bricks of marijuana.
The evidence for the prosecution fully proved beyond

reasonable doubt the elements necessary to successfully
prosecute a case for the illegal sale of a prohibited drug,
namely, (a) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object,
and the consideration; and (b)26 the delivery of the things
sold and the payment therefor.
After chemical analysis by an NBI forensics expert, the
thirteen (13) blocks of suspected marijuana, with, a
combined weight of 13.05 kilograms, which were found in
and seized from the residence
27
of BELLA, were determined
to be genuine marijuana.
The identity of ENRIQUE and BELLA as the sellers and
possessors of the seized marijuana cannot be doubted, for
they were caught in flagrante delicto in a standard police
buy-bust operation. Such positive identification prevails
over their feeble denial and declaration that the abaca bag
which contained twelve blocks of marijuana
28
was only left to
their custody by a certain Marlyn.
Moreover, under the circumstances, it was the duty of
the police officers to conduct a more thorough search of the
premises after a successful entrapment, then make the
necessary arrest of the suspects and seizure of suspected
contraband. The search, being incident to a lawful arrest,
was valid notwithstanding the absence of a warrant. In
fact, the warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a
suspect’s lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of
the one arrested to include 29the premises or surrounding
under his immediate control.
It is true that under Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Constitution, “The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purposes shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon prob-
_______________
25 TSN, 20 July 1994, 4-6, 8-12.

26 People v. De Vera, 275 SCRA 87 [1997].
27 TSN, 19 July 1994, 3-4; TSN, 20 July 1994, 9-10; TSN, 27 July 1994,
5-7; TSN, 23 August 1994, 9-11; OR, p. 10; Exhibits “D” to “D-14.”
28 TSN, 31 August 1994, 11-14.
29 People v. Figueroa, 248 SCRA 679 [1995].
705
VOL. 357, MAY 10, 2001 705

People vs. Hindoy
able cause to be determined personally by the judge after

examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.” It is equally true that any evidence
obtained 30in violation of such right shall be inadmissible in
evidence. This right, however, is not without exceptions,
as in instances of searches incidental to lawful arrests.
Under paragraph (a), Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court, a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a
person when in his presence the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense.
In the case at bar, upon consummation of the illicit sale,
PO3 Eugenio introduced himself and SPO1 Cariaga as
police officers. ENRIQUE and BELLA were apprised of
their constitutional rights. Thereafter, the officers searched
the room where BELLA supposedly got the first block of
marijuana. There, they found an abaca bag under a folding
table. Upon inspection, the bag yielded twelve more31
blocks
of compressed marijuana inside a plastic bag. The trial
court, therefore, was correct in admitting all thirteen
blocks of marijuana in evidence.
Likewise, the trial court did not err when it convicted
ENRIQUE and BELLA of illegal possession of prohibited
drugs punishable under Section 32
8 of R.A. No. 6425, as
amended. In People v. Lacerna, possession of marijuana is
absorbed in the sale thereof, except where the seller is
further apprehended in possession of another quantity of
the prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale
and which are probably intended for some future dealings
or use by the seller.
The records, indeed, reveal that aside from selling one
block of marijuana to the arresting officers, accused-
appellants were also caught in possession of another 12.04
kilograms of marijuana in twelve individually wrapped
blocks, hidden in a bag under a table in their house. Their

possession thereof gives rise to a disputable
______________
30 Section 3, Article III, 1987 Constitution.

31 TSN, 20 July 1994, 10-11, 25; 26 July 1994, 7; 27 July 1994, 7-9; 23
August 1994, 9-10, 15-17; OR, 10; Exhibits “A”; “D” to “D-13.”
32 278 SCRA 561 [1997].
706

People vs. Hindoy
presumption under Section 3[j], Rule 131 of the Rules of

Court, that they were the owners of the same. Said
provision states as follows:
Sec. 3. Disputable Presumptions.—The following presumptions

are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and
overcome by other evidence:
xxx
(j) x x x, that things which a person possesses, or
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
The uncorroborated assertion of ENRIQUE and BELLA
that the abaca33
bag belongs to a certain Marlyn who left it
in their care amounts to a bare denial which, by itself, is
insufficient to overcome this legal presumption.
WHEREFORE, the decision of 10 November 1994 of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 68, in Criminal
Case No. 2674-D and Criminal Case No. 2675-D, finding
accused-appellants ENRIQUE HINDOY and BELLA B.
NEGROSA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
Sections 8 and 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended by Section 13 of Republic Act No. 7659, and
sentencing them in each case to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua with the attending accessory penalties,
and to pay the costs of the suit, is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto.
Costs against accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Kapunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Ynares-Santiago, J., On official leave.
Judgment affirmed in toto.
Notes.—Proof of ownership of the drug is not necessary

in the prosecution of illegal drug cases—it is sufficient that
it was found in the accused’s possession. (People vs.
Montano, 337 SCRA 608 [2000])
_______________
33 TSN, 31 August 1994, 11-14.
707
VOL. 357, MAY 10, 2001 707

People vs. Salipdan
In drug cases, an arrest made in flagrante delicto does not

require that the arresting officer possess expert knowledge
of the substance seized, or that he perform precise scientific
tests to determine its exact nature. (People vs. Zheng Bai
Hui, 338 SCRA 420 [2000])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People V Hindoy PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Hindoy PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 357

692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Evidence; Witnesses;

include the premises or surrounding under his immediate control.

VOL. 357, MAY 10, 2001 693

People vs. Hindoy

rant. In fact, the warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to

owners of the same. Said provision states as follows: Sec. 3.

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:

This is an appeal by accused-appellants Enrique Hindoy

Criminal Case No. 2674-D

That on or about the 18th day of March, 1994, in the Municipality

[drug], did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly

Criminal Case No. 2675-D

That on or about the 18th day of March, 1994, in the

VOL. 357, MAY 10, 2001 695

liver and give away to another 1.01 kilogram of compressed dried

Based on the separate testimonies of PO3 Roberto Eugenio,

an estimated weight of one kilogram, which was wrapped

3 Id., 12-13; id., 3-4.

696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Julieta C. Flores, Forensic Chemist II at the National

never asked Marilyn, a stranger as far as she was

VOL. 357, MAY 10, 2001 697

Mandaluyong Jail. At 11 a.m., a certain police officer

around noon, was brought to the Bicutan Narcotics Unit.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders

1. In Criminal Case No. 2674-D, applying the provisions of

10 TSN, 30 August 1994, 10-14.

698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

2. In Criminal Case No. 2675-D, applying the

The Dangerous Drugs Board is hereby ordered to send its

The trial court gave credence to the testimony of the police

that “the circumstances present in these cases impressed

13 Decision, 5; OR, 181.

VOL. 357, MAY 10, 2001 699

Sensing the urgency of17 rectifying such erroneous filing,

was a result of her counsel’s inadvertence, hence, it was a

17 Rollo of UDK-12220, 4-6.

700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE SEARCH AND

THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR

FLOWERING TOPS ADUCED IN EVIDENCE BY THE

In essence, ENRIQUE and BELLA maintain that they

22 Appellant’s Brief, 7-15; Rollo, 48-56.

VOL. 357, MAY 10, 2001 701

fact was established by ENRIQUE and BELLA, so the

702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

stated “kukuha kami”, to what you are referring to?

VOL. 357, MAY 10, 2001 703

Q: You mean you inspected the block?

Q: Upon inspection of the said bag, Mr. Witness, could you

704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The evidence for the prosecution fully proved beyond

25 TSN, 20 July 1994, 4-6, 8-12.

VOL. 357, MAY 10, 2001 705

able cause to be determined personally by the judge after

blocks, hidden in a bag under a table in their house. Their

30 Section 3, Article III, 1987 Constitution.