PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CARLOS BACCOY et.

al
G.R. No. 134002. September 12, 2002
Ynares-Santiago, J.

Doctrine: Any objection pertaining to the illegality of arrest and or search must be made
before one enters his plea otherwise the objection is deemed waived. Also, any irregularity
will be deemed waived upon entering a plea and participation in the trial.

FACTS
Accused-appellants were charged with a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. It is
alleged in the information that the accused-appellants were in conspiracy with one another in
carrying and transporting marijuana bricks which is an illegal drug. However, only accused-
appellant Baccoy was arrested and he pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued, and the prosecution
narrated its own version of the facts. According to the prosecution, Sgt. Pio Kidpo was asked to
go on a secret mission to Mr. Data, Bauko, Mountain Province. He then proceeded to the bus
station and while waiting for the bus, he and another police officer received a report that
someone will be transporting marijuana to Baguio. The policemen then boarded the bus and at a
certain junction, the bus stopped to take on three passengers including the accused-appellant.
According to the police, one of the three men immediately boarded the bus while the two others
passed three bags through the window before boarding the bus. Said men seated on the last row
and the bags were dirty and covered with grass.
15 minutes after boarding, the men expressed their desire to go down, but the bus did not
stop. Nevertheless, the men picked up their bags and were preparing to alight the vehicle which
aroused the suspicion of the police and demanded them to put down their bags and demanded to
see the contents thereof. However, four passengers of the bus, including two of the accused-
appellants jumped through the window. Accused-appellant Baccoy also tried to jump but was
prevented by the police. Upon inspection of the bags, it is found that two of which contains
marijuana bricks while the dark bag contains only clothes. Accused-appellant was brought to the
police station and was detained therein.
The defense presents another version of the story. According to accused-appellant
Baccoy, he was assigned to tour Evans couple when he alighted at a certain junction to bring
supplies to his children to Baguio. He felt the need to defecate and had barely finished when he
heard the bus approaching. He asserts that he only had one dark bag with him and that he seated
at the back row since all others seats were occupied. Moments later, he was surprised to hear
someone yell and that people started jumping through the window. He was about to look into the
commotion when the police grabbed him from behind and took him to the police station.
Notwithstanding this, the trial court rendered the assailed decision and convicted
accused-appellants for the crime charged on the basis that they acted on conspiracy. On appeal,
accused-appellant Baccoy faults the trial court for convicting him despite lack of sufficient
evidence and for admitting the confiscated marijuana despite its inadmissibility.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the confiscated marijuana can be admitted as evidence? – YES.

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 Accused-appellant argues that the warrantless arrest was unlawful and that he was
subjected to an illegal search since the arresting policemen had no probable cause or personal
knowledge of facts that would form an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion that a
crime had just been committed, is being committed, or about to be committed by him. He
further argues that since the arrest was illegal ab initio, the accompanying search was
likewise illegal.
However, it is to be noted that failure to raise any objection to any irregularity of
attendant to an arrest and search would cause any person to be estopped from assailing the
same. Any objection must be made before he enters his plea otherwise the objection is
deemed waived. Accordingly, in submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court by
entering a plea of not guilty and by participating in the trial, any irregularity that may have
attended accused-appellants arrest was cured. In the present case, the accused-appellant
failed to raise the irregularity at the opportune time and pleaded not guilty to the present case.
Hence, he is now estopped from questioning or objecting any search or arrest made against
him.

2. W/N the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant- YES.

While it is a well-settled doctrine that findings of the trial court regarding the
credibility of the witnesses are accorded great respect, such rule is not without exception. In
the case at bar, the trial court merely relied on the statements given by the policemen that the
accused-appellants were in conspiracy with one another despite the absence of proof to
support the same. Moreover, a careful perusal of the records would show gaping holes on the
testimonies of the policemen including their failure to describe the role of the accused-
appellant when the men boarded the bus. Also, the mere fact that the accused-appellant
Baccay looks strange or unfamiliar and that he was also seated at the back with other
accused-appellants are not tantamount to any indication of guilt.
As to the alleged attempt of Baccay to escape, it is to be noted that other two passengers
of the bus, aside from the accused-appellants, also jumped through the window. Baccay
claims that he was merely checking the situation when he was grabbed from behind. Such
action by Baccay is a natural reaction and there was no other indication that he was also
about to jump out through the windows. Lastly, Baccay consistently claimed that he only
owned the dark bag which only contains clothes and that he had no knowledge of the
marijuana leaves inside the other two bags. Since there is no knowledge or proof that he
owns those bags, he cannot be held guilty for the crime of transporting such marijuana.
To reiterate, The presumption of innocence is not a mere procedural tool of the law, it is a
constitutional right. Thus, even though the police officers enjoy the presumption of regularity
in the performance of their duty, their testimonies are insufficient to induce moral certainty.
The prosecutions case against accused-appellant is weak for the evidence does not measure
up to the required quantum of proof to convict in criminal cases.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bontoc, Mountain Province, Branch
35, finding accused-appellant Carlos Baccoy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-
appellant is ACQUITTED of the crime charged based on reasonable doubt. He is ordered
RELEASED from detention unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2