November 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > November 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 178688 : November 26, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. COURT OF APPEALS, CAI XIHE @ CHUA SAK HAP, TIAN SANG, CAI DUSHI @ CHUA TOK SIT, YAN QIZHONG @ SING HONG, LAO CHI DIAK @ CHI JAK, KING CHENG, AND HIM CHAMOU @ CHA BO :
[G.R. No. 178688 : November 26, 2008]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. COURT OF APPEALS, CAI XIHE @ CHUA SAK HAP, TIAN SANG, CAI DUSHI @ CHUA TOK SIT, YAN QIZHONG @ SING HONG, LAO CHI DIAK @ CHI JAK, KING CHENG, AND HIM CHAMOU @ CHA BO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 26 November 2008:
G.R. No. 178688 (People of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, Cai Xihe @ Chua Sak Hap, Tian Sang, Cai Dushi @ Chua Tok Sit, Yan Qizhong @ Sing Hong, Lao Chi Diak @ Chi Jak, King Cheng, and him Chamou @ Cha Bo).- This is a special civil action for certiorari filed by petitioner People of the Philippines, assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 22 May 2007 which acquitted private respondents of the charge of violating Section 14-A, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Likewise challenged herein are the Entry of Judgment and Order of Release issued by the CA also on 22 May 2007. The foregoing orders are sought to be nullified for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The prosecution espoused the following version of the facts:
On 10 January 2002, Chief Inspector Villegas received a report from a confidential informant regarding the illegal drug activities of Chua Sak Hap (Chua), a Chinese national and one of the seven (7) Chinese private respondents herein. Thereafter, he instructed Inspector Carlos to conduct surveillance operations on Chua.
On 17 January 2002, Carlos met with the informant and Chua, who took them to a house to show them the illegal drugs. Inside the house, Carlos noticed bottles and boxes along the hallway and saw several Chinese-looking men walking around and cooking something in a big round apparatus over a fire and pipes in one of the rooms. The house had a strong stench of chemicals similar to acetone or alcohol. Carlos and the informant were given a sampling of the white crystalline substance which after submission for examination, turned out to be 3.17 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The following day, Carlos obtained a search warrant and thereafter, a team of policemen raided the house.
Upon entry into the house, the police officers went into various rooms and thereat saw respondents operating different laboratory equipments. All private respondents were then arrested and herded to the living room. Thereafter, the raiding team conducted an inventory of all seized equipment and articles. Laboratory tests revealed that the funnel seized in the house contained 812.8 grams of shabu. Private respondents were thus charged with violation of Sections 16 and 14-A of R.A. No. 6425 for possessing and manufacturing, respectively, of illegal drugs.
When arraigned, private respondents pleaded not guilty. They all declared innocence of the offense charged against them, alleging that they came to the Philippines merely to seek lucrative jobs as they had been framed-up.
The trial court found the alibi of private respondents unworthy of credence and held that the prosecution had adequately proven their guilt. It declared them guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals, of violation of Section 14-A, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, the charge of violation of Section 16 being already absorbed in the former case, and imposed upon each of them the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of five million (P5,000,000.00) pesos.[1] Private respondents were also ordered deported without further proceedings immediately after service of sentence.
On intermediate review by the CA,[2]" the decision of the trial court was reversed. The dispositive portion provided, thus:
The appellate court found mat the police officers committed several irregularities in the manner by which the search of the questioned premises was conducted. In particular, the CA held that Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court was violated when the raiding team conducted the search after they had herded private respondents. Thus, while the latter were present during the search, they were not allowed to actually witness the conduct thereof. The presence of barangay officials during the search did not cure the defect. Likewise, the appellate court brushed aside the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in light of the constitutional right involved.
Hence, with the exclusion of the seized drugs due to the violation of the right of private respondents against unlawful arrest and illegal searches and seizures, the decision of the trial court was reversed by the CA.
On the other hand, petitioner contends that private respondents were caught illegally manufacturing dangerous drugs in flagrante delicto when the raiding team entered their house to enforce the search warrant. Therefore, the warrantless arrest of private respondents was lawfully done and the contemporaneous search of the immediate vicinity thereof likewise validly made. Moreover, petitioner invokes the "plain view" doctrine, underscoring the argument that the items seized were found by the police officers before they even started to search the house as private respondents were then in actual operation of the equipment used to manufacture the shabu.
Nevertheless, the People contends that even assuming strict compliance with the Rules for the enforcement of a search warrant is necessary, the Chinese nationals were caught in flagrante delicto and consequently, the only duty of the raiding team was to make an inventory of the materials, equipment and evidence found in plain view. It is argued that the police officers even explained the list and presented the evidence recovered to the barangay kagawad and barangay tanod who both voluntarily signed all inventory receipts and the certificate of orderly search. They were not able to secure the signature of private respondents however, due to difficulty in communicating and their refusal to cooperate. Hence, the annotation "refusal to sign" was made on the search inventory documents.
The Law Firm Saguisag & Associates, counsel for private respondents Cai Dushi, Yan Qiz-Hong, Lao Chi Diak, King Cheng and Liam Chamore filed a Manifestation[4] dated 14 January 2008 informing the Court that they no longer have any contact with their clients and they do not have the resources and personnel to look for them.[5] Said counsel manifested that they are adopting the position of the CA favorable to the accused given the rather limited post-acquittal nature of counsel's engagement and leave it to the other counsel to expand on the same.
Meanwhile, Atty. Efren L. Cordero, counsel for private respondents Cai Xihe and Tian Sang filed a Comment with Motion to Direct Respondents Cai Hixe and Tian Sang to Pay Attorney's Fees to their Counsel.[6] Said comment does not contain any argument in response to the petition, but rather enumerates every effort exerted by counsel for the benefit of his clients in this case, which according to him, deserve the agreed remuneration from the two private respondents, who have been released from detention. Atty. Cordero thus prayed that private respondents be directed to pay him his attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000,000.00 each.
The petition should be dismissed.
Under Section 1, Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, any party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. The ban on double jeopardy is deeply rooted in jurisprudence. The only way to nullify an acquittal is through a proper petition for certiorari to show grave abuse of discretion. In general, the rule is that a remand to a trial court of a judgment of acquittal brought before the Supreme Court on certiorari cannot be had unless there is a finding of mistrial. The prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment in favor of the defendant in a criminal case, be it issued by the trial court or the Court of Appeals, in the absence of a statute clearly conferring that right.[7] In People v. CA and Maquiling,[8] we held thus:
The instant petition for certiorari which seeks to nullify the decision of the CA acquitting the private respondents goes deeply into the appellate court's appreciation and evaluation in esse of the evidence adduced by the parties. While the appreciation thereof may have resulted in possible lapses in evidence evaluation, it nevertheless does not detract from the fact that the evidence was considered and passed upon. This consequently exempts the act from the writ's limiting requirement of excess or lack of jurisdiction. As such, it .becomes an improper object of and therefore non-reviewable by certiorari. This Court cannot review errors of judgment as those in the instant case without running afoul of the private respondents' constitutional right against double jeopardy.[10]
As to Atty. Cordero's motion, the same is hereby denied for lack of merit. Private respondents' liability to their counsel for attorney's fees, if any, is not a proper subject of a criminal suit and the same should be threshed out in an appropriate civil proceeding therefor.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the Decision dated 22 May 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00383 acquitting private respondents is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 178688 (People of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, Cai Xihe @ Chua Sak Hap, Tian Sang, Cai Dushi @ Chua Tok Sit, Yan Qizhong @ Sing Hong, Lao Chi Diak @ Chi Jak, King Cheng, and him Chamou @ Cha Bo).- This is a special civil action for certiorari filed by petitioner People of the Philippines, assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 22 May 2007 which acquitted private respondents of the charge of violating Section 14-A, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Likewise challenged herein are the Entry of Judgment and Order of Release issued by the CA also on 22 May 2007. The foregoing orders are sought to be nullified for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The prosecution espoused the following version of the facts:
On 10 January 2002, Chief Inspector Villegas received a report from a confidential informant regarding the illegal drug activities of Chua Sak Hap (Chua), a Chinese national and one of the seven (7) Chinese private respondents herein. Thereafter, he instructed Inspector Carlos to conduct surveillance operations on Chua.
On 17 January 2002, Carlos met with the informant and Chua, who took them to a house to show them the illegal drugs. Inside the house, Carlos noticed bottles and boxes along the hallway and saw several Chinese-looking men walking around and cooking something in a big round apparatus over a fire and pipes in one of the rooms. The house had a strong stench of chemicals similar to acetone or alcohol. Carlos and the informant were given a sampling of the white crystalline substance which after submission for examination, turned out to be 3.17 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The following day, Carlos obtained a search warrant and thereafter, a team of policemen raided the house.
Upon entry into the house, the police officers went into various rooms and thereat saw respondents operating different laboratory equipments. All private respondents were then arrested and herded to the living room. Thereafter, the raiding team conducted an inventory of all seized equipment and articles. Laboratory tests revealed that the funnel seized in the house contained 812.8 grams of shabu. Private respondents were thus charged with violation of Sections 16 and 14-A of R.A. No. 6425 for possessing and manufacturing, respectively, of illegal drugs.
When arraigned, private respondents pleaded not guilty. They all declared innocence of the offense charged against them, alleging that they came to the Philippines merely to seek lucrative jobs as they had been framed-up.
The trial court found the alibi of private respondents unworthy of credence and held that the prosecution had adequately proven their guilt. It declared them guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals, of violation of Section 14-A, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, the charge of violation of Section 16 being already absorbed in the former case, and imposed upon each of them the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of five million (P5,000,000.00) pesos.[1] Private respondents were also ordered deported without further proceedings immediately after service of sentence.
On intermediate review by the CA,[2]" the decision of the trial court was reversed. The dispositive portion provided, thus:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellants are ACQUITTED of the offense charged on constitutional grounds. Their (appellants) immediate RELEASE from confinement is ordered, unless they are lawfully held in custody for another cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to forthwith IMPLEMENT this Decision and to INFORM this Court within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, of the date appellants were actually released from confinement.
SO ORDERED.[3]
The appellate court found mat the police officers committed several irregularities in the manner by which the search of the questioned premises was conducted. In particular, the CA held that Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court was violated when the raiding team conducted the search after they had herded private respondents. Thus, while the latter were present during the search, they were not allowed to actually witness the conduct thereof. The presence of barangay officials during the search did not cure the defect. Likewise, the appellate court brushed aside the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in light of the constitutional right involved.
Hence, with the exclusion of the seized drugs due to the violation of the right of private respondents against unlawful arrest and illegal searches and seizures, the decision of the trial court was reversed by the CA.
On the other hand, petitioner contends that private respondents were caught illegally manufacturing dangerous drugs in flagrante delicto when the raiding team entered their house to enforce the search warrant. Therefore, the warrantless arrest of private respondents was lawfully done and the contemporaneous search of the immediate vicinity thereof likewise validly made. Moreover, petitioner invokes the "plain view" doctrine, underscoring the argument that the items seized were found by the police officers before they even started to search the house as private respondents were then in actual operation of the equipment used to manufacture the shabu.
Nevertheless, the People contends that even assuming strict compliance with the Rules for the enforcement of a search warrant is necessary, the Chinese nationals were caught in flagrante delicto and consequently, the only duty of the raiding team was to make an inventory of the materials, equipment and evidence found in plain view. It is argued that the police officers even explained the list and presented the evidence recovered to the barangay kagawad and barangay tanod who both voluntarily signed all inventory receipts and the certificate of orderly search. They were not able to secure the signature of private respondents however, due to difficulty in communicating and their refusal to cooperate. Hence, the annotation "refusal to sign" was made on the search inventory documents.
The Law Firm Saguisag & Associates, counsel for private respondents Cai Dushi, Yan Qiz-Hong, Lao Chi Diak, King Cheng and Liam Chamore filed a Manifestation[4] dated 14 January 2008 informing the Court that they no longer have any contact with their clients and they do not have the resources and personnel to look for them.[5] Said counsel manifested that they are adopting the position of the CA favorable to the accused given the rather limited post-acquittal nature of counsel's engagement and leave it to the other counsel to expand on the same.
Meanwhile, Atty. Efren L. Cordero, counsel for private respondents Cai Xihe and Tian Sang filed a Comment with Motion to Direct Respondents Cai Hixe and Tian Sang to Pay Attorney's Fees to their Counsel.[6] Said comment does not contain any argument in response to the petition, but rather enumerates every effort exerted by counsel for the benefit of his clients in this case, which according to him, deserve the agreed remuneration from the two private respondents, who have been released from detention. Atty. Cordero thus prayed that private respondents be directed to pay him his attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000,000.00 each.
The petition should be dismissed.
Under Section 1, Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, any party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. The ban on double jeopardy is deeply rooted in jurisprudence. The only way to nullify an acquittal is through a proper petition for certiorari to show grave abuse of discretion. In general, the rule is that a remand to a trial court of a judgment of acquittal brought before the Supreme Court on certiorari cannot be had unless there is a finding of mistrial. The prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment in favor of the defendant in a criminal case, be it issued by the trial court or the Court of Appeals, in the absence of a statute clearly conferring that right.[7] In People v. CA and Maquiling,[8] we held thus:
While certiorari may be used to correct an abusive acquittal, the petitioner in such extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the lower court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice. On the other hand, if the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary review of the findings of the court a quo, the constitutional right against double jeopardy would be violated. Such recourse is tantamount to converting the petition for certiorari into an appeal, contrary to the express injunction of the Constitution, the Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence on double jeopardy.[9]
The instant petition for certiorari which seeks to nullify the decision of the CA acquitting the private respondents goes deeply into the appellate court's appreciation and evaluation in esse of the evidence adduced by the parties. While the appreciation thereof may have resulted in possible lapses in evidence evaluation, it nevertheless does not detract from the fact that the evidence was considered and passed upon. This consequently exempts the act from the writ's limiting requirement of excess or lack of jurisdiction. As such, it .becomes an improper object of and therefore non-reviewable by certiorari. This Court cannot review errors of judgment as those in the instant case without running afoul of the private respondents' constitutional right against double jeopardy.[10]
As to Atty. Cordero's motion, the same is hereby denied for lack of merit. Private respondents' liability to their counsel for attorney's fees, if any, is not a proper subject of a criminal suit and the same should be threshed out in an appropriate civil proceeding therefor.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the Decision dated 22 May 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00383 acquitting private respondents is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 57.
[2] Only private respondents Cai Xihe and Tian Sang filed their Joint Appellants' Brief.
[3] Rollo, p. 78.
[4] Id. at 102-103.
[5] Id. at 102-103.
[6] Id. at 87-91.
[7] People v. Hon. Velasco, 394 Phil. 517, 559 (2000) citing Galman v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72670, 12 September 1986, 144 SCRA 43.
[8] 368 Phil. 169 (1999); See also People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152532, 16 August 2005, 467 SCRA 137.
[9] Id. at 185.
[10] People v. Hon. Velasco, 394 Phil. 517, 561 (2000).
