GR 88017; (January, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 88017 ; January 21, 1991
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LO HO WING alias PETER LO, LIM CHENG HUAT alias ANTONIO LIM and REYNALDO TIA y SANTIAGO, defendants.
FACTS
Appellant Peter Lo and co-accused Lim Cheng Huat were convicted for transporting 56 teabags of metamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The case stemmed from an undercover operation (“OPLAN SHARON 887”) by the PC-CIS. A discharged co-accused and deep penetration agent, Reynaldo Tia, infiltrated the syndicate. Tia accompanied Lo on a trip to China, where Lo purchased tin cans of tea. In a hotel room, Tia observed Lo and two others handling tea bags and sniffing smoke from a burning substance, which he was told were “Chinese drugs.” Upon their return to Manila, operatives, acting on Tia’s tip, intercepted the taxi carrying Lo and Tia. A search of Lo’s luggage yielded tin cans containing teabags of the regulated drug.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) the validity of the warrantless search and seizure; (2) whether criminal intent is required for conviction under the Dangerous Drugs Act; and (3) the propriety of discharging accused Reynaldo Tia as a state witness.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the warrantless search was valid as a search of a moving vehicle. The operatives had prior surveillance information and a confirmed tip from their agent about the specific date, time, and manner of transport of the illegal drugs. This provided probable cause to conduct an immediate search without a warrant, as the vehicle could quickly move out of the jurisdiction. On the second issue, the Court ruled that the offense of transporting a prohibited drug is malum prohibitum. The law punishes the very act of transport; thus, mere commission of the act constitutes the offense, and criminal intent is not an essential element for conviction. On the third issue, the discharge of Tia was proper under the Rules of Court. The trial court correctly exercised its discretion, as Tia’s testimony was absolutely necessary to establish the conspiracy and details of the crime, and his account was substantially corroborated by the testimony of the apprehending officer. The conditions for discharge under the rules were satisfied.