G.R. No. 177570 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. NELIDA DEQUINA Y DIMAPANAN, JOSELITO JUNDOC Y JAPITANA & NORA JINGABO Y CRUZ, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment is hereby rendered finding accused NELIDA DEQUINA y DIMAPANAN, JOSELITO JUNDOC y JAPITANA and NORA JINGABO y CRUZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal transport marijuana and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Each of them is ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00. [5] The accused-appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing decision, but the RTC denied the same in its Order dated December 27, 2000. Accused-appellants then filed a notice of appeal on January 25, 2001. Thus, the records of Criminal Case No. 99-177383 were forwarded to this Court. Pursuant to our decision in People v. Mateo , [6] however, we referred the case to the Court of Appeals, [7] where it was docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01431. Accused-appellants made the following assignment of errors in their brief: I THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR ILLEGAL TRANSPORT OF MARIJUANA. II THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE SEIZED ITEMS FROM THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE SEIZED IN VIOLATION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE. [8] In its Decision [9] dated August 16, 2006, the appellate court affirmed accused-appellants' conviction. It decreed: WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED , the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, in Manila, in Criminal Case No. 99-177393, finding accused-appellants NELIDA DEQUINA y DIMAPANAN, JOSELITO JUNDOC y JAPITANA and NORA JINGABO y CRUZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegally transporting 32[,]995 grams of marijuana is hereby AFFIRMED . [10] Hence, accused-appellants appealed to this Court. In our Resolution dated July 4, 2007, we required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within 30 days from notice. Both parties manifested that they no longer intend to file any supplemental brief considering that they have already raised all the issues and arguments in their original briefs. We find no merit in the present appeal. The accused-appellants were charged with and convicted of the offense of illegal transport of marijuana, defined and penalized under Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, which provides: SEC. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs . -- The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million 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. Accused-appellants assail their conviction, asserting that their arrests were illegal. They were not doing anything illegal that would have justified their warrantless arrest, much less a warra