Transportation

People vs. Suico

Facts

 Suico was stopped at a checkpoint and was seen by five (5) police office riding a motorcycle
approaching the same upon which he decided to stop and made a u-turn but he fell down.
 In summary, the police officers were at said checkpoint to implement a no plate, no travel
policy.
 Defendant attempted to run b ut was caught by one of the police officers. One of them
requested to open his backpack to which the defendant admitted was containing marijuana.
 Defendant was charged with illegal transportation of drugs.

Defense of the Defendant: He was framed up by the lumads (defense only presented the lone testimony
of Suico)

Issue: Is Suico Guilty

SC:

 The fact of an actual conveyance or transportation itself is sufficient to support a finding that the
criminal act was committed

 Yes. Appellant was caught carrying a backpack and sack with bundles of marijuana when he was
flagged down on board his motorcycle. The prosecution had proven in the trial the fact of
transportation of dangerous drugs.

People vs. Macaspac

Facts

 Macaspac were charged of illegeal transportation of drugs (552 grams of shabu.

 NBi received a report from a confidential informant that a drug trafficking group was set to
transport drugs to another group on the same day at MOA.
 MOA Personnel saw the defendant to have alighted from a vehicle ith a plastic bag containing
bag labeled zest o
 Upon inspection, NBI agents recovered rrom the defendants’ car the zet o box containing a
plastic pack with white crystalline substance inside.

Defense: There is no illegal transporting given that they were not able to leave the premises of the MOA.

Ruling:

 True, appellants were not able to completely leave the SM MOA premises because their car was
blocked by Agent Otic and his team but the fact remains – they had already moved the drugs
from the SM Hypermarket into the car and had actually started driving away with it. In fine, the
essential element of moving the drugs from one place to another was already accomplished, no
matter how far or near the same had gone from their place of origin.

People vs. Amago

Facts
  Defendant was charged with illegal transportation for allegedly transporting six piece s of heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance
 Two police officers Larena and Pinero was manning a checkpoint on which a black Honda Wave
motorcycle was about to pass. The driver appeared to be rattled and he abruptly executed a ut
turn.
 This lead the police officers to believe that the driver and his passenger committed traffic
violations or were transporting something illegal.
 Upon catching up with the motorcycle, the police discovered on its utility box a peppermint gum
containing with six elongated heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white
crystalline granules.

Ruling

 In the instant case, records established that accused-appellants were found in possession of six
(6) sachets containing shabu. It cannot be denied that they used a motor vehicle to transport
the said illegal drugs from one place to another. As stated earlier, transportation means to carry
or convey from one place to another, the fact alone that the accused-appellants were found in
possession of the illegal drugs while traversing the South National Highway is sufficient to justify
their conviction.

 People vs. Del Mundo: it is inconsequential to prove that the illegal drugs were delivered or
transported to another person. The only thing that had to be proven was the movement of the
illegal drugs from one place to another. The records show that the prosecution has successfully
proven such fact

Transportation Variance Possession

Musa vs. People

Facts

 Police received a special information about a purported plan to transport illegal drugs to
Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental.
 The police officers saw the described car in the information heading towards the checkpoint
prompting them to prepare a flag down of the vehicle. In response the vehicle abruptly change
direction.
 Police officers were not able to identify that the accused came from the vehicle. They wre
merely discovered to have bee under a nearby hut twenty meters waway from the vehicle.

Issue: Is petitioners guilty of illegal transportation of drugs.

Ruling

 No. Indeed, the prosecution failed to show that any distance was travelled by petitioners with
the drugs in their possession.[46] That petitioners were standing in a hut located within the
vicinity of the multi-cab does not prove with certainty that they were the driver and passengers
of the vehicle. Undeniably, the conclusion that they were transporting drugs merely because of
their proximity to the multi-cab when they were arrested has no basis and is pure speculative at
best.
 Variance Doctrine does not apply (The rule is that when there is a variance between the offense
charged in the complaint or information, and that proved or established by the evidence, and
the offense as charged necessarily includes the offense proved. the accused shall be convicted
of the offense proved included in that which is charged.)
  Integrity of the evidence was not preserved (Shabu) – Chain of custody rule was not followed.

Chain of custody What happened

1. Seizure and marking by the
apprehending officer
2. Turnover of the illegal drug sized by
the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer
3. Investigating officer to the forensic
chemist
4. Turnover and submission to court by
the forensic chemist
1. Police
2. Police
There is no document showing that the
illegal drugs seized was transferred to the
proper authority by the apprehending
officers.

 Furthermore, the stringent requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 were not strictly
complied with. As part of the chain of custody procedure, the apprehending team is mandated,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph
the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were
seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses

Attempted Transportation

People vs. Lacson

Facts

 confidential informant came to the PDEA c that she had been recruited by a certain "Gina" as a
drug courier who would travel to Malaysia as a tourist to bring luggage containing illegal drugs.
She was also instructed by "Gina" to recruit another person to do the same
 While "Gina" and Runana were talking to the confidential informant, 102 Alarde discreetly
pierced the side of the bag with a pen and inspected what was inside. He discovered white
crystalline substance contained in a plastic bag that was wrapped in aluminum foil

 Lacson was charged with Illegal transportation of drugs (Section 5), and attempt or Conspiracy
to commit the same (Section 26)

Ruling

 Defendant is guilty as charged

 Even an attempt to transport prohibited drugs is already penalized by the ssame penalty
prescribed for the commission thereof.
 Lacson planned to transport the seized prohibited drugs to Malaysia through the use of drug
couriers in the person of the confidential informant and 102 Alarde

Effect if payment of money not proven in sale of drugs