FACTS:

On December 3, 1998, appellants Chi Chan Liu and Hui Lao Chung were apprehended by police officers who discovered plastic bags containing suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride in their speed boat. The appellants failed to provide identification papers or answer questions about their identities or purpose of entry. They were transferred to the police station where an inventory was conducted in the presence of an official witness. The incident was reported to their superiors who advised them to await their arrival. The appellants and the suspected drugs were brought to Camp Vicente Lim the next day for further investigation. An interpreter was brought in to communicate with the appellants and they kept repeating the phrase "call China, big money." Forensic examination confirmed that the white substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor filed an Information against the appellants for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The appellants pleaded not guilty, but the trial court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, raising various issues including the elements of the crime and the validity of their arraignment. The Supreme Court found merit in the appellants' argument regarding the elements of the crime charged.

The appellants argue that importation requires the vessel to come from a foreign port, citing a previous ruling. However, the Court disagrees and explains that importation refers to the introduction of something from an external source. The prosecution's evidence, such as the appellants' Chinese nationality and mention of China during custodial investigation, is not sufficient to prove that the drugs came from China. The Court concludes that the prosecution failed to present concrete evidence to establish that the drugs came from an external source, casting doubt on the importation contention. However, the Court clarifies that the appellants are not exempt from liability for possession of the drugs.

In a previous case, it was established that possession is not an essential element of the crime of illegal importation. The importation is already complete once the ship carrying the regulated drugs anchors in Philippine territory. Thus, the possession of the drugs, while proven beyond question, is not necessary for a conviction of illegal importation. However, in a more recent ruling, the Court held that possession is inherent in importation and dismissed the information on illegal importation, finding double jeopardy since possession is necessarily included in importation.

ISSUES:

1. Whether possession is an essential element of the crime of illegal importation of regulated drugs.

2. Whether double jeopardy exists when possession is necessarily included in importation.

3. Whether the illegal possession of regulated drugs is an element of and is necessarily included in the illegal importation of regulated drugs.

4. Whether the guilt of the appellants for illegal possession of regulated drugs is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

5. Whether the warrantless arrest and search and seizure of the appellants were justified.

6. Whether the confiscated bags of regulated drugs are admissible as evidence against the appellants.

7. Whether the prosecution established the chain of custody of the illegal drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Whether there was a violation of the accused's right to a speedy trial by the delay in filing the Information beyond the prescribed period.

9. Whether the accused's constitutional rights were violated during custodial investigation, particularly their right to counsel.

10. Whether the accused's constitutional rights were violated during their arraignment due to the absence of a counsel of their choice and an interpreter competent in their language.

11. Whether the appellants were in possession of regulated drugs without the requisite authority.

12. Whether the penalty imposed on appellants is proper.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court initially held that possession is not an essential element of the crime of illegal importation. The importation is considered complete when the drugs are brought into the waters of the Philippine Islands on a boat destined for a Philippine port. Thus, the appellants cannot be convicted of illegal possession since possession is not a necessary element of illegal importation.

2. However, in a more recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that possession is inherent in importation. Importation cannot happen without possession. Therefore, possession is a necessary element of the crime of illegal importation.

3. The Supreme Court also ruled that double jeopardy exists when possession is necessarily included in importation. If possession is inherent in importation, charging the accused with both importation and possession would violate their right against double jeopardy. Thus, the dismissal of one of the two charges is warranted to avoid double jeopardy.

4. The Court held that the illegal possession of regulated drugs is an element of and is necessarily included in the illegal importation of regulated drugs. Convicting the appellants of illegal possession, if duly established beyond reasonable doubt, does not violate their right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. Illegal possession is an element of and is necessarily included in the illegal importation of regulated drugs. Thus, the Court shall determine the appellants' culpability under Section 16, Article III of RA No. 6425.

5. The Court found that the guilt of the appellants for illegal possession of regulated drugs is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record established that appellants were in possession of bags containing regulated drugs without the requisite authority. The police officers found the appellants with several transparent plastic bags containing what appeared to be shabu, which were plainly exposed to their view. The appellants failed to provide any explanation as to how the drugs were planted in their speed boat or the purpose of their presence in the area. Their claim of being framed up was not substantiated with sufficient evidence. The testimonies of the defense witnesses were viewed as merely a product of an afterthought and lacking credibility. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses prevailed over the appellants' bare denials.

6. The warrantless arrest and consequent search and seizure of the appellants were justified because they were caught in flagrante delicto, and their arrest and search were conducted within the presence and view of the arresting officers. The circumstances surrounding the arrest and the actions of the appellants gave the arresting officers reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed.

7. The confiscated bags of regulated drugs are admissible as evidence against the appellants. The search and seizure conducted on the appellants were justified under the plain view doctrine. The bags containing the drugs were in plain view of the arresting officers, who had a prior justification for their presence. The discovery of the drugs was inadvertent, and it was immediately apparent to the officers that the bags contained evidence of a crime.

8. The prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody of the illegal drugs beyond reasonable doubt. The bags were properly marked, photographed, and subjected to inventory at the time of the appellants' arrest. The bags were turned over to the PNP Regional Headquarters, where they underwent examination at the Regional Crime Laboratory Service Office. The laboratory report, photographs, and receipts were made part of the records of the case.

9. The delay in filing the Information beyond the prescribed period did not affect the validity of the proceedings taken against the accused for the act they committed. The accused should have taken steps to report or file charges against the police officers if they believed there was intentional delay. The presence of administrative shortcomings does not negate the fact that illegal drugs were found in the accused's possession.

10. The accused's claim of constitutional rights violation during custodial investigation, specifically their right to counsel, is irrelevant and immaterial since they did not make any admission or confession during the custodial investigation. Their conviction was based on other convincing evidence, not on any statement extracted from them during custodial investigation.

11. There was no violation of the accused's right to counsel during arraignment. The trial court gave them ample opportunity to secure the services of a counsel of their choice. It was only when they appeared without counsel on a subsequent date that the court appointed counsel from the Public Attorney's Office. The accused cannot now raise errors in the proceedings conducted by the trial court since they were appointed counsel in compliance with the law. Similarly, the accused had the opportunity to secure the services of a competent Chinese interpreter but failed to do so despite several opportunities given by the trial court.

12. The appellate court upheld the findings of the trial court that the appellants were in possession of regulated drugs without the requisite authority. The appellate court concurred with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and found no reason to reverse the trial court's findings.

13. The penalty imposed on the appellants for illegal possession of regulated drugs is proper. Based on the quantity of the drugs seized from the appellants (45 kilograms of methylamphetamine hydrochloride), the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to impose a fine of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) for each appellant, considering the quantity of the drugs involved.

PRINCIPLES:

• Possession is a necessary element of the crime of illegal importation.

• Double jeopardy exists when possession is necessarily included in importation.

• The illegal sale of dangerous drugs absorbs the illegal possession thereof except if the seller was also apprehended in the illegal possession of another quantity of dangerous drugs not covered by or not included in the illegal sale.

• Illegal possession of dangerous drugs is an element of and is necessarily included in illegal sale.

• Illegal possession is an element of and is necessarily included in the illegal importation of regulated drugs.

• Where an accused is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein.

• Denial or frame-up is a standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law and must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the trial court's findings on credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect.

• The right to be secure in one's person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed by Section 2, Article III of the Philippine Constitution.

• Warrantless arrest during the commission of a crime does not require a previously issued warrant, as provided in Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

• To fall under the exception to warrantless arrest, two elements must be present: the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating the commission of a crime, and such overt act must be done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

• The plain view doctrine allows for the seizure and presentation of evidence that is in plain view of an officer, who has a right to be in a position to have that view. Requisites for the applicability of the plain view doctrine include: a prior justification for intrusion or a position to view a particular area, the inadvertent discovery of the evidence, and the immediate apparentness of the incriminating nature of the item observed.

• The prosecution has the burden to establish the chain of custody of seized items beyond reasonable doubt, and this requires proof that the illegal drugs seized are the same substance presented in court. Documentation and the proper handling of the evidence are crucial to establishing the chain of custody.

• A delay in filing the Information beyond the prescribed period does not invalidate the proceedings taken against the accused as long as they were charged for the act they committed. Administrative shortcomings of police officers do not diminish the fact of the accused's possession of illegal drugs.

• The right to counsel during custodial investigation becomes relevant and material when an extrajudicial admission or confession becomes the basis of conviction. If no admission or confession is made, there is no violation of the right to counsel during custodial investigation.

• The accused's right to counsel during arraignment is satisfied if they are given ample opportunity to secure the services of a counsel of their choice. If they fail to do so, the court may appoint counsel in compliance with the law.

• The accused has the opportunity to secure a competent interpreter and cannot claim violation of their rights if they fail to take the opportunities given by the court.

• The findings of facts of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive on the Supreme Court, absent any evidence that both courts ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.

• The penalty for illegal possession of regulated drugs is reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos, depending on the quantity of drugs involved.

• The penalty for possession of 200 grams or more of methylamphetamine hydrochloride is reclusion perpetua.

• The quantity of drugs seized is a determining factor in imposing the appropriate penalty.