G.R. No. 236259 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EMILIANO BATERINA Y CABADING, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, accused EMILIANO BATERINA is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the Information and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. Accused JOSEFA DAYAO , BEN PAKOYAN , AND MELINA PUKLIS are hereby ACQUITTED , prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the three accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, accused Josefa Dayao, Ben Pakoyan and Melina Puklis are ordered released from custody, unless they are being charged from some other lawful cause/s. The 48,565.68 grams of marijuana which are in the custody of the prosecution are ordered confiscated and turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for destruction in the presence of Court personnel and media. SO ORDERED . [37] The trial court ruled that the police officers had probable cause to flag down and search appellant's vehicle. While inspecting appellant's vehicle, PSI Soria smelled the distinctive odor of marijuana and in fact found marijuana bricks inside the vehicle. [38] The very act of transporting illegal drugs is malum prohibitum where intent or knowledge of what is being transported is not necessary. [39] Thus, appellant's argument that he had no knowledge of the contents of the bags had no merit. More, the seized illegal drugs from appellant were the same drugs presented as evidence in court. [40] The Proceedings before the Court of Appeals On appeal, appellant argued: his co-accused owned the bags and he had no knowledge that the same contained marijuana bricks; [41] the police officers had no probable cause to search his vehicle. [42] The search was not valid nor was his arrest, therefore, the seized items are inadmissible in evidence. Finally, the trial court erred when it overlooked the prosecution's breach of the chain of custody rule. [43] For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) through Assistant Solicitor General Ellaine Rose A. Sanchez-Corro and State Solicitor Manelyn E. Caturla, countered in the main: 1) the police officers had probable cause to effect a warrantless search and seizure; [44] 2) appellant was caught in flagrante delicto [45] at a checkpoint transporting marijuana; 3) appellant's objection to the legality of his arrest was deemed waived because he did not raise it prior to his plea; [46] and 4) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items negated appellant's argument that there was breach in the chain of custody. [47] The Court of Appeals' Ruling By Decision [48] dated May 12, 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain exceptions, i.e. , where the search and seizure happened in a moving vehicle. [49] The police officers here had probable cause to search appellant's vehicle which upon inspection, emitted the odor of marijuana. They in fact readily confirmed that marijuana bricks were inside the