(4)

People v. Lacerna (1997) | G.R. No. 109250 | September 5, 1997 | Ponente : Panganiban, J.

FACTS:

- PO3 Carlito Valenzuela manning checkpoint, stops taxi with Lacernas on board because they looked suspicious
- Permission asked by PO3 Valenzuela to search, consent given by appellant
- Recovered plasBc bag (twisted & Bed on top) filled with 18 blocks of marijuana
- Appellant denies ownership and knowledge, says it was his uncle’s and that they were just shipping it to
Iloilo for him
- Both Lacernas were accused of a violaBon of SecBon 4 of RA 6425
- The trial court could not convict the appellant of delivering or selling prohibited drugs, but instead charged him
with giving away to another prohibited drugs, since it was not denied by the appellant that he did give to his co-
accused cousin the bundled marijuana
- Noriel Lacerna acquiWed for insufficiency of evidence
- Marlon Lacerna (appellant) was convicted for the crime of violaBon of SecBon 4 of RA 6425, as amended, hence
this peBBon

ISSUES + RULING:

Was appellant’s right against warrantless arrest and seizure violated? -- NO

- Five generally accepted excepBons to the rule against warrantless arrest

1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest
2. Search of moving vehicles (yes, but only under probable cause)
3. Seizure in plain view
4. Custom searches
5. Waiver of the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable searches and seizures (yes)
- Appellant had given his consent to do a search
- Had there been no consent, (evidence obtained would have been inadmissible in court) there would have been
a violaBon of Art III sec2 and 3 (2) of the 1987 ConsBtuBon, since probable cause for a search was not evident
(only mere suspicion as stated in facts)
- Probable cause – (a) disBnct marijuana odor [not present due to bag twisted and Bed] (b) informer
idenBfies accused [none] (c) accused fled [no] (d) confidenBal reports [none] (e) intelligence info and
clandesBne reports [none]

Was the trial court correct in convicBng appellant of giving away to another 18 blocks of marijuana? -- NO

- The trial court jusBfied the convicBon of appellant for giving away to another the prohibited drugs, because he
literally handed to Noriel (co-accused) the plasBc bag containing marijuana, manually transferring the plasBc
bag from the front seat to the backseat of the taxicab. The court holds that that is not the act penalized by the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
- The phrase “give away” is synonymous with to furnish, a broad term embracing the acts of selling and giving
away with the intent of transferring ownership.
- Further, adopBng the trial court's interpretaBon would lead to absurd conclusions. The co-accused should have
been liable for the same crime since he “gave away” the bag to PO3 Valenzuela, and yet he was acquiWed by the
trial court.
- It is a well seWled rule that statutes should receive a sensible construcBon so as to give effect to the legislaBve
intenBon and to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion.

May the appellant be held guilty of illegal possession of prohibited drugs? -- YES

- In People vs. Tabar the Court convicted appellant of illegal possession under SecBon 8 of said Act, although he
was charged with selling marijuana under SecBon 4, ArBcle II thereof.
- Possession is a necessary element in a prosecuBon for illegal sale of prohibited drugs. The same rule is
applicable in cases of delivery of prohibited drugs and giving them away to another.

In People vs. Manzano, affirms that possession is a condiBon sine qua non (indispensable and essenBal).

From the penal provision under consideraBon and from the cases adjudicated, the elements of illegal possession of
prohibited drugs are as follows:
1. The accused is in possession of an item or object which is idenBfied to be a prohibited drug;
2. Such possession is not authorized by law; and
3. The accused freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug.

A person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but if he did intend to commit an act, and that act
is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself, then he can be held liable for the malum prohibitum.

His possession thereof gives rise to a disputable presumpBon under SecBon 3[j], Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, that
he is the owner of such bag and its contents
- SecBon 3[j], Rule 131 of the Rules of Court states, That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the
doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a
person possess, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;

DISPOSITION: The assailed Decision is hereby MODIFIED. Appellant is CONVICTED of illegal possession of prohibited
drugs under SecBon 8 of R.A. 6425