View full case

PEOPLE v. NORIEL LACERNA Y CORDERO

FACTS:

Marlon Lacerna and Noriel Lacerna were traveling in a taxicab on their way to the North Harbor when their taxi was stopped by police officers. They were carrying two bags, one with their personal belongings and another with items given to them by their uncle. The police officers requested to search their bags, and the accused allowed the search. The officers found marijuana inside a plastic bag in one of the bags. Marlon admitted that the contents of the bag were marijuana. They were then taken to the WPD Headquarters and interviewed by Major Rival. They were asked about the origin of the baggage and were subsequently brought to a cell where they claim to have been maltreated. They were forced to admit ownership of the marijuana and were taken to the Inquest Prosecutor. Marlon stated that he met his uncle at Munoz Market, and his uncle asked him to bring his personal belongings to Iloilo. Marlon and Noriel met their uncle at the Grand Central Station, where he placed the plastic bag next to their bags. They did not inspect the contents as the bag was twisted and knotted. They were going to Iloilo for Marlon to gather requirements for his application to join the Marines, and Noriel was looking for a job and staying with Marlon in Caloocan City.

The appellant in this case was convicted of giving away marijuana to Noriel Lacerna. The appellant claimed that he did not know the contents of the bag he gave to Noriel, but the trial court ruled that he could still be convicted for giving away marijuana even without guilty knowledge. The trial court found the appellant guilty of violating the law, while Noriel was acquitted due to insufficient evidence as it was the appellant who gave him the marijuana. The appellant objected to the trial court's decision and raised several errors in the court's findings.

ISSUES:

  1. Was appellant's right against warrantless arrest and seizure violated?

  2. Was the trial court correct in convicting appellant for "giving away to another" 18 blocks of marijuana?

  3. May the appellant be held guilty of "illegal possession" of prohibited drugs?

  4. Whether the search of the appellant and his luggage was valid.

  5. Whether the act of giving the prohibited drug to another constitutes the offense of "giving away" under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

  6. Whether the appellant can be convicted of illegal possession of prohibited drugs.

  7. Whether the appellant is guilty of illegal sale of prohibited drugs.

  8. Whether the appellant is guilty of illegal possession of prohibited drugs.

  9. Whether the accused should be convicted of illegal possession of prohibited drugs under Section 8 of R.A. 6425.

RULING:

  1. The Court answers the first two questions in the negative and the third in the affirmative. The search and seizure were not justified and violated the appellant's constitutional rights.

  2. The trial court was incorrect in convicting the appellant for "giving away to another" 18 blocks of marijuana.

  3. The appellant can be held guilty of "illegal possession" of prohibited drugs.

  4. The search of the appellant and his luggage was valid because he freely consented to the search. His consent validated the search, which is a recognized exception to the rule against warrantless search.

  5. The act of handing over the prohibited drug to another does not constitute the offense of "giving away" under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. "Giving away" refers to a disposition other than a sale, which involves no consideration. It is an act short of a sale where ownership of the prohibited drug is transferred. In this case, the act of handing over the plastic bag to another is not a "giving away" as contemplated by the law.

  6. The appellant can be convicted of illegal possession of prohibited drugs. Possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale thereof, except when the seller is further apprehended in possession of another quantity of prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale. In this case, the appellant was found in possession of prohibited drugs, which constitutes a separate offense under the law.

  7. The appellant is guilty of illegal possession of prohibited drugs under Section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The evidence on record established that the appellant was in possession of a plastic bag containing 18 kg of marijuana. His possession of the prohibited drug gives rise to a disputable presumption that he is the owner of such bag and its contents. The appellant's defense of denial, without clear evidence to substantiate it, is insufficient to overcome this presumption. Furthermore, the trial court gave credence to the prosecution's evidence and rejected the appellant's defense.

  8. Yes, the accused should be convicted of illegal possession of prohibited drugs under Section 8 of R.A. 6425.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The right against warrantless search and seizure is protected by the Constitution, but subject to legal and judicial exceptions.

  • Five generally accepted exceptions to the rule against warrantless arrest have been formulated.

  • A search and seizure of moving vehicles may be made only upon probable cause.

  • The search in moving vehicles is limited to routine checks, such as visual inspection or flashing a light inside the car.

  • Probable cause must be evident in order to justify the search and seizure of a person and their belongings.

  • The mere suspicion or suspicious reactions of a person does not constitute probable cause.

  • Consent is a generally recognized exception to the rule against warrantless search.

  • "Giving away" under the Dangerous Drugs Act refers to a disposition other than a sale, which involves no consideration.

  • Possession is an element of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, delivery of prohibited drugs, and giving them away to another.

  • The elements of illegal sale of prohibited drugs include the sale and delivery of a prohibited drug to another, and knowledge that the substance sold and delivered is a dangerous drug. Delivery implies prior possession of the prohibited drugs.

  • Illegal possession of prohibited drugs requires the accused to be in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug, without authorization by law, and with the accused's conscious and voluntary possession.

  • Intent to commit the crime is not necessary in acts mala prohibita, but intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law must be shown.

  • In illegal possession of prohibited drugs, the prosecution must prove that the possession was done freely and consciously, which is an essential element of the crime.

  • Trial courts' assessment of witnesses' credibility is accorded the highest respect by appellate courts, as trial courts are in a better position to observe their demeanor and deportment on the witness stand.

  • Illegal possession of prohibited drugs is a crime under Section 8 of R.A. 6425.

  • The accused may be sentenced in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

  • The court may impose a fine as part of the penalty for illegal possession of prohibited drugs.