People vs Anita Claudio

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

People vs Anita Claudio
G.R. No. 72564
April 15, 1988

Facts:

On or about 21 July 1981, in the Olongapo City, Philippines, the above-named ACCUSED without being lawfully authorized, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly transport 1.1 kilos of Marijuana dried leaves, which are prohibited drugs for the purpose of selling the same from Baguio City to Olongapo City.

Issues:

a)Whether or not the accused is also liable Sec. 4, Art. II of R.A. 6425 aside from Sec. 8, Art. II of the same Act?

b)Whether warrantless search, seizure, and apprehension is unlawful under Rule 126, Sec.12?

Held:

Yes. In the case at bar, alibi does not deserve much credit as it was established only by the accused herself. Moreover, it is a well-established rule that alibi cannot prevail over positive testimony. The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.

Sec. 4, Art II of R.A. 5425

The provision provides the Sale, Administration, Delivery Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs where the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. Although the accused contends that she may not be convicted of this provision, the court held that contention is without merit. A closer perusal of the subject provision shows that it is not only delivery which is penalized but also the sale, administration, distribution and transportation of prohibited drugs. Claudio was caught transporting 1.1 kilos of marijuana, thus the lower court did not err in finding her guilty of violating Sec. 4.

As held in the case of People v. Toledo, (140 SCRA 259, 267) "the possession of such considerable quantity as three plastic bags of marijuana leaves and seeds coupled with the fact that he is not a user of prohibited drugs cannot indicate anything except the intention of the accused to sell, distribute and deliver said marijuana.

Rule 126, Sec. 12

The provision provides the Search incident to lawful arrest where a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant in paragraph (12a). Thus, appellant Claudio was caught transporting prohibited drugs. Pat. Daniel Obiña did not need a warrant to arrest Claudio as the latter was caught in flagrante delicto. The warrantless search being an incident to a lawful arrest is in itself lawful. (Nolasco v. Pano, 147 SCRA 509). Therefore, there was no infirmity in the seizure of the 1.1 kilos of marijuana.