Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 115156 December 14, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
GO SHIU LING, MAR ONG, TERESITA !A"AR # O!EDO$A, %&' TEODORO
E(ANGELISTA # DE LOS REES,accused.
ANTONIO COMIA # )UINER, accused-appellant.

MENDO$A, J.:
his is an appeal f!o" the decision of the Re#ional !ial Cou!t of Pasa$ Cit$, %!anch C&,
findin# accused-appellant 'ntonio Co"ia #uilt$ of conspi!in# (ith fou! othe!s to i"po!t
!e#ulated d!u#s in violation of '!t. III, )*+ in !elation to '!t. IV, ),* of the Dan#e!ous D!u#s
'ct -Rep. 'ct No. .+,/, as a"ended0.
he facts a!e as follo(s1
'bout the "iddle of 'u#ust *22,, Chief Inspecto! '"ado! Pabustan of the C!i"inal
Investi#ation Section of the Philippine National Police !eceived a !epo!t f!o" the Inte!national
Police O!#ani3ation -Inte!pol0 that a la!#e ship"ent of na!cotics (as a!!ivin# in Manila b$ ai!
"ail. 'cco!din#l$, he confe!!ed (ith the Collecto! of Custo"s at the Nino$ '4uino
Inte!national 'i!po!t, Pasto! 5uiao, (ho o!de!ed an inspection of pa!cels of co""e!cial
4uantit$ co"in# f!o" 6on#7on#, Sin#apo!e, Indonesia and %an#7o7.
On Septe"be! 8, *22,, accused-appellant 'ntonio Co"ia (ent to the 'i!"ail Dist!ibution
Cente! -'DC0 at the N'I' to in4ui!e about pac7a#es sent th!ou#h 'SCO, a b!o7e!a#e fi!"
en#a#ed in f!ei#ht facilitatin# and fo!(a!din#, in (hich Co"ia (as (o!7in#. Co"ia had been
as7ed b$ 'SCO Mana#e! 9$dia Di3on to follo( up the !elease of the pa!cels of a client,
Ma!$ On#, (hich (e!e supposed to have left the 6on#7on# 'i!po!t on Septe"be! ,, *22,.
he ca!#o consisted of about 8: pa!cels (hich (e!e add!essed to va!ious individuals and
bea!in# the identif$in# "a!7s ;V5M; o! ;V5MO.;
Co"ia (as info!"ed b$ e!esita %a<a! at the 'i! Pa!cel Division of the 'DC that the
pac7a#es had a!!ived but that the$ (e!e bein# held fo! inspection, possibl$ even fo! sei3u!e.
6e (as info!"ed that one of the pac7a#es "a!7ed ;V5M; had a!!ived in bad o!de! and that
its contents, (hich tu!ned out to be (atches, had spilled out.
Co"ia told Di3on (hat he had been told. Di3on, in tu!n, called up Ma!$ On# to info!" he! of
the condition of the ship"ent.
Co"ia tal7ed to seve!al officials of the 'DC. 6avin# failed to convince the" to !elease his
ca!#o, Co"ia (ent to see 'ctin# Supe!visin# 'pp!aise! of the 'i! Pa!cel Division of the
'i!"ail Dist!ibution Cente! E""anuel 9audit on Septe"be! 2, *22, to "a7e an appoint"ent
fo! eodo!o Evan#elista, the o(ne! of 'SCO and Co"ia=s b!othe!-in-la(, to see 9audit.
he sa"e "o!nin#, Evan#elista ca"e and inte!ceded fo! the !elease of the pac7a#es b$
su##estin# to 9audit, ;Pe!ahin na lan# e7a i$an.; 9audit advised Evan#elista to spea7
instead (ith Collecto! 5uiao.
Mean(hile, the othe! pac7a#es of 'SCO, "a!7ed ;V5M, N ;V5MO,; and ;RE,; (e!e
inspected. On Septe"be! >, *22,, a pac7a#e "a!7ed ;V5MO; and add!essed to a ce!tain
;COMI',; (as found to contain plastic ba#s containin# c!$stals. ?hen e@a"ined at the
National %u!eau of Investi#ation, the ship"ent tu!ned out to be "eta"pheta"ine
h$d!ochlo!ide o! shabu.
he "atte! (as !epo!ted to the Co""issione! of Custo"s and the Post"aste! 5ene!al. he
follo(in# da$, Septe"be! 2, *22,, in thei! p!esence and in the p!esence of the PNP, nine
pa!cels "a!7ed ;V5MO; (e!e opened. he pa!cels (e!e add!essed to diffe!ent individuals.
(o pa!cels, both add!essed to ;COMI',; (e!e found to contain c!$stalline po(de! (hich
(hen tested (as found to be shabu. ' total of ,*.> 7ilo#!a"s of shabu, (ith an esti"ated
value of P/: "illion, (as uncove!ed.
Evan#elista, (ho (as p!esent, (as conf!onted (ith the ca!#o. 6e #ave a state"ent to the
police den$in# an$ 7no(led#e of the i"po!tation and clai"in# that the ca!#o belon#ed to
Ma!$ On#.
'cco!din#l$, Ma!$ On# (as invited fo! 4uestionin#. She e@ecuted an affidavit ad"ittin# that
the pac7a#es "a!7ed ;V5M; (e!e he!s, but she clai"ed the$ (e!e actuall$ "eant fo! M!s.
5o Shiu 9in#, the siste! of the sende! in 6on#7on#. On# clai"ed that she had "e!el$ been
as7ed b$ 5o Shiu 9in# to facilitate the i"po!tation of the bo@es (hich she -Ma!$ On#0
thou#ht contained (atches. %ased on Ma!$ On#=s state"ent, 5o Shiu 9in# (as also
app!ehended.
In an Info!"ation dated Septe"be! **, *22,, Co"ia, e!esita %a<a!, Ma!$ On#, and 5o Shiu
9in# (e!e cha!#ed (ith violation of '!t. III, )*+, in !elation to '!t. IV, ),* of R.'. No. .+,/, as
a"ended. he info!"ation alle#ed
hat on o! about the 2th da$ of Septe"be!, *22,, in Pasa$ Cit$, Met!o Manila
and (ithin the <u!isdiction of this 6ono!able Cou!t, the abovena"ed accused,
conspi!in# and confede!atin# to#ethe! and "utuall$ helpin# one anothe!,
(ithout autho!it$ of la(, did then and the!e (ilfull$, unla(full$, and feloniousl$
i"po!t o! b!in# into the Philippines th!u the 'i!"ail Dist!ibution Cente!,
Do"estic Road, this Cit$, Meta"pheta"ine 6$d!ochlo!ide -shabu0, a
!e#ulated d!u#.
Apon thei! a!!ai#n"ent on Septe"be! *>, *22,, the accused pleaded ;not #uilt$.;
On Octobe! *,, *22,, the Info!"ation (as a"ended to include eodo!o Evan#elista, (ho,
ho(eve!, has !e"ained at la!#e.
!ial p!oceeded e@cept as to Evan#elista. 'fte! the p!osecution had !ested its case, the
accused filed sepa!ate de"u!!e!s to the p!osecution=s evidence.
On 'p!il */, *228, the t!ial cou!t dis"issed the case a#ainst %a<a!, on the #!ound that he!
co"plicit$ consisted "e!el$ of bein# in the (o!7in# a!ea of the custo"s e@a"ine!s of the
'DC, locatin# Co"ia=s pa!cels, (he!e she had no autho!it$ to be. he t!ial cou!t held that
this ci!cu"stance (as insufficient to p!ove that she (as in conspi!ac$ (ith the othe!s in the
i"po!tation of shabu.
On 'p!il ,,, *228, the t!ial cou!t also #!anted the de"u!!e!s of On# and 5o. It held that
Evan#elista=s affidavit, (hich i"plicated On#, (as inad"issible as evidence because
Evan#elista (as not p!esented to identif$ it. 9i7e(ise, On#=s o(n affidavit, in (hich she
pointed to 5o as the !eal consi#nee of the pac7a#es, (as also held to be inad"issible on the
#!ound that it had been ta7en (hile she (as unde! custodial investi#ation (ithout assistance
of counsel. -On# (as not conf!onted (ith the th!ee pa!cels "a!7ed ;V5MO.; She ad"itted
o(nin# pac7a#es "a!7ed ;V5M; but "ade no "ention of the pac7a#es "a!7ed ;V5MO; in
he! affidavit. Mo!eove!, (hat she ad"itted (as that the pa!cels (e!e sent to he! b$ one Bu
Ben Cian, (he!eas the th!ee pa!cels appea!ed to have been shipped b$ a ce!tain Chin#
Min#0.
Co"ia=s de"u!!e! (as, ho(eve!, denied. 6e (as found #uilt$ and sentenced to suffe! life
i"p!ison"ent and to pa$ a fine of P8:,:::.::.
he t!ial cou!t found that 'SCO=s modus operandi (as to have the ca!#o of clients divided
into pa!cels (hich (e!e then add!essed to diffe!ent individuals in o!de! to !educe o! enti!el$
avoid custo"s duties. he add!essees (e!e people close to Evan#elista, such as accused-
appellant, (ho is his b!othe!-in-la(, 9$dia Di3on, his siste!-in-la(, Coel Evan#elista, his son,
and %e!t ua3on, his nei#hbo!. he na"es and add!esses (e!e li7e(ise inte!chan#ed o!
fictitious add!esses (e!e #iven. he pac7a#es (e!e coded (ith the initials of 'SCO=s
clients so that the$ could be identified. he code na"es ;V5M; and ;V5MO; stood fo! Ma!$
On#.
Co"ia=s <ob (as to "onito! the pac7a#es as the$ a!!ived at the 'DC, althou#h the$ (e!e not
!eleased the!e but at pilot post offices to (hich the$ (e!e fo!(a!ded. e!esita %a<a! 7ne( the
coded initials of 'SCO=s clients, havin# been #iven a list of the". She (ould "onito! the
pac7a#es of 'SCO that had a!!ived and !ela$ the info!"ation to Co"ia so that the latte!
could clai" the" at the Sta. Mesa satellite post office. In clai"in# the", Co"ia did not have
to si#n no! sho( an$ identification fo! the pac7a#es he !eceived fo! 'SCO. he pe!son in
cha!#e of the Sta. Mesa post office si"pl$ chec7ed the ite"s on his list. Co"ia !efused to
na"e the pe!sonnel f!o" (ho" he clai"ed his pac7a#es.
In this pa!ticula! instance, Co"ia (as follo(in# up the pa!cels of Ma!$ On# (hich left the
'i!"ail Cente! of 6on#7on# on Septe"be! ,, *22,. he$ (e!e supposed to contain (atches
"isdecla!ed as to$s and #ifts. In this (a$ On# (as in the past able to i"po!t dutiable #oods,
such as calculato!s, (ithout pa$in# the co!!espondin# ta@es.
Co"ia testified that althou#h 'SCO clients had used his na"e, it (as the fi!st ti"e that
Ma!$ On# used his na"e as a du""$ add!essee. P!eviousl$, Ma!$ On# had used the
na"es of the othe! du""$ add!essees (hich had been #iven to he! b$ 9$dia Di3on. On the
othe! hand, Co"ia=s na"e (as used b$ Rud$ 6e!nande3, anothe! client of 'SCO. Co"ia
said he consented to the use of his na"e b$ On# at the instance of 9$dia Di3on. Co"ia
clai"ed he (as a "e!e e"plo$ee and delive!$ "an and #ot nothin# in e@chan#e fo! the use
of his na"e. 9$dia Di3on, on the othe! hand, denied that she eve! allo(ed Ma!$ On# to use
Co"ia=s na"e.
In findin# Co"ia #uilt$, the t!ial cou!t held that he acted on his o(n in conspi!ac$ (ith
un7no(n pa!tne!s, b$ usin# Ma!$ On#=s coded initials ;V5MO; and the!eb$ "a7in# it appea!
the$ (e!e pa!t of On#=s ship"ent, since onl$ the th!ee pa!cels all add!essed to Co"ia and
"a!7ed ;V5MO; contained shabu. he t!ial cou!t held that the fact that Co"ia (as pe!sistent
in his follo( up sho(ed that he 7ne( the contents of the th!ee pa!cels. he t!ial cou!t held1
If, as Co"ia clai"ed, he had been #oin# to the 'DC dail$ f!o" the last (ee7
of 'u#ust *22, up to the fi!st (ee7 of Septe"be! *22,, he could not have
failed to dete!"ine that the th!ee pa!cels had a!!ived on Septe"be! 8, *22,
and, the!efo!e, the!e (as no lon#e! an$ need to follo(-up even up to
Septe"be! 2, *22, if his pu!pose (as "e!el$ to dete!"ine (hethe! o! not
the$ had a!!ived. hat he had !eli#iousl$ #one to the 'DC to follo( up even
afte! beco"in# a(a!e of the a!!ival of the pac7a#es is an indication that he
(as the!e not "e!el$ to 7no( if the$ had a!!ived but to secu!e thei!
i""ediate dispatch to the satellite office. hat he info!"ed 9audit about
Evan#elista=s (antin# to see hi" -9audit0 as in fact Evan#elista (ent to see
9audit to (ho" he p!oposed ;Pe!ahin na lan# e7a i$an; is an indication of his
7een inte!est in havin# the pa!cels !eleased. Such 7een inte!est indicates
p!io! 7no(led#e of the contents of the pa!cels, fo! if, as clai"ed, the$ 7ne(
the" to contain "e!el$ (atches, and also as clai"ed, he #ot nothin# fo! the
use of his na"e, (h$ the pe!sistent follo(-upD
Co"ia has appealed, "a7in# the follo(in# assi#n"ent of e!!o!s1
I.
6E RI'9 COAR ERRED IN CONC9ADIN5 EROM 6E M'FE OE DA%IOAS
CIRCAMS'NCES 6' 'CCASED-'PPE99'N 6'S PRIOR GNO?9ED5E
OE 6E CONENS OE 6E 6REE P'RCE9S IN HAESION ?6IC6 ?ERE
EOAND O CON'IN PRO6I%IED DRA5S.
1
II
6E RI'9 COAR ERRED IN 6O9DIN5 6' 6E P'RCE9S IN HAESION
?ERE O 5O O COMI' 'ND 6IS CONSPIR'ORIS ?6IC6 CONC9ASION
?'S %'SED ON 6E ANDAE 'ND ERRONEOAS INEERENCE DERIVED
EROM 6E ESIMONB OE 9BDI' DIFON O 6E EEEEC 6' S6E DID
NO 5IVE 6E N'ME OE 'CCASED-'PPE99'N EOR P'RCE9S OE M'RB
ON5 'S I ?'S ' CER'IN RADB 6ERN'NDEF ?6O ?'S ASIN5 6E
N'ME OE 'CCASED-'PPE99'N.
*
III
6E RI'9 COAR ERRED IN 6O9DIN5 6' 6E EVIDENCE '5'INS
'CCASED-'PPE99'N ;S6O?S PROOE OE CONSPIR'CB %EBOND
RE'SON'%9E DOA% IN 6E IMPOR'ION OE 6E 6REE P'RCE9S OE
S6'%A SA%CEC OE 6E C'SE ' %'R.
+
IV
6E RI'9 COAR ERRED IN NO '%SO9VIN5 'CCASED-'PPE99'N OE
6E OEEENSE C6'R5ED ON 6E 5ROAND 6' 6IS 5AI9 6'S NO
%EEN S6O?N %B PROOE %EBOND RE'SON'%9E DOA%.
4
he Solicito! 5ene!al filed in lieu of an appellee=s b!ief a Manifestation that, in his opinion,
the #uilt of the accused has not been p!oven be$ond !easonable doubt and, fo! this !eason,
!eco""endin# the ac4uittal of accused-appellant Co"ia.
?e find accused-appellant=s contentions and the Solicito! 5ene!al=s "anifestation to be
(ithout "e!it.
First. 'ccused-appellant and the Solicito! 5ene!al contend that, instead of sho(in# that
Co"ia 7ne( that the pac7a#es contained shabu, the fact that Co"ia (as pe!sistent in
see7in# the !elease of the pac7a#es sho(s that he did not 7no( (hat the pa!cels contained.
he$ contend that Co"ia 7ne( that one pa!cel had been discove!ed to contain (atches in
co""e!cial 4uantit$, not to$s o! #ifts as stated in the custo"s decla!ationJ that the ne@t step
(ould be the sei3u!e of the ca!#oJ and that in follo(in# up the "atte! at the 'DC, his onl$
pu!pose (as to t!$ to p!event the sei3u!e of the #oods. he$ contend that if Co"ia 7ne( that
the pac7a#es contained shabu, he (ould have stopped #oin# to the 'DC and instead (ould
have #one into hidin#.
his contention has no "e!it. It is clea! f!o" the evidence that Evan#elista and his fi!" had
connections (ith the people inside the 'DC and the Sta. Mesa Post Office, because of (hich
Evan#elista and his fi!" (e!e able to slip th!ou#h custo"s co""e!cial 4uantities of hi#hl$
dutiable #oods. 'ccused-appellant hi"self states in his b!ief that the fact that E""anuel
9audit of the 'DC alle#edl$ (a!ned 9$dia Di3on that the ship"ent (as #oin# to be
discove!ed ;indicates KtheL e@istence of an alliance (ith 9audit.; ?ithout such an ;alliance,;
"e!el$ usin# du""$ add!essees (ith fictitious o! inaccu!ate add!esses on the pa!cels
handled b$ the 'SCO (ould not be enou#h to "a7e the s"u##lin# of #oods and
cont!aband possible.
Indeed, 9$dia Di3on he!self, the 'SCO "ana#e!, testified1
'B. M'RCO9E'1
H Bou said at the outset, Mada" ?itness, that $ou a!e
p!esentl$ <obless and that $ou last !epo!ted fo! (o!7 "iddle of
'u#ust *22,, (ill $ou please e@plain to the Cou!t the
inte!!uption in $ou! (o!7D
' %ecause in "id-'u#ust *22, 'DC called up ou! office,
info!"in# "e to stop (o!7in# and since then I have stopped
(o!7in#.
COAR1
H No(, tell us, (ho in the 'DC called $ou upD
' M!. Mann$ 9audit, Bou! 6ono!.
H Did it occu! to $ou to in4ui!e f!o" hi" (h$ he advised $ou
to stop (o!7in#D
' %ecause acco!din# to hi" ;"ainit na da( ho; because it is
f!o" hi" (as KsicL that (e !eall$ #et the info!"ation.
H No( tell us, (hat did $ou unde!stand b$ ;"ainitD;
' I cannot unde!stand (hat he "eant b$ ;"ainit.; 6e <ust told
"e so.
Co"ia=s !ole (as to "onito! the pac7a#es as the$ a!!ived at the 'DC. 6e sa( to it that the
pac7a#es bea!in# false add!esses (e!e not sent to the dead lette! office o! !etu!ned to thei!
sende!s. 6e (as 7no(n at the Sta. Mesa post office to (hich the pac7a#es (e!e fo!(a!ded.
his fact enabled hi" to have the" !eleased (ithout havin# to si#n fo! an$thin# o! p!oduce
p!oof of identit$, as (ould have been the p!ocedu!e fo! clai"in# pa!cels.
hus it is "o!e li7el$ that Co"ia 7ept on (o!7in# fo! the !elease of the pac7a#es despite the
discove!$ of the (atches because of his f!iends at the 'DC. 6e had !eason to (o!7 ha!d fo!
the !elease of the pac7a#es, no( that the (atches had been discove!ed and !an7in# officials
of the 'DC p!esu"abl$ al!ead$ 7ne( that 'SCO=s pac7a#es had been "isdecla!ed. 6e
had to have the" !eleased befo!e the !est of the pac7a#es (e!e inspected. ?hen his effo!ts
failed, Co"ia called on his b!othe!-in-la(, eodo!o Evan#elista, (ho (as the o(ne! of the
fi!" and a fo!"e! custo"s police"an, so that the latte! could use his influence. ?hen
Evan#elista a!!ived, he assu!ed 9audit that the pac7a#es contained onl$ (atches and boldl$
offe!ed ;Pe!ahin na lan# e7a i$an.;
his is fa! diffe!ent f!o" the scena!io (hich the Solicito! 5ene!al has po!t!a$ed (he!e an
innocent "an=s na"e is used b$ anothe! fo! unla(ful pu!poses (ithout his 7no(led#e o!
consent. Co"ia (as not a victi", no! (as he f!a"ed up. Co"ia (as not an o!dina!$
e"plo$ee of the 'SCO. 6e is the b!othe!-in-la( of the o(ne! of 'SCO, eodo!o
Evan#elista, and the one ent!usted b$ the latte! to follo( up "atte!s at the 'DC and the Sta.
Mesa Post Office. 6e (as the one (ho (as in fact 7no(n to the e"plo$ees the!e. %a<a!
testified that Co"ia (ould in4ui!e f!o" he! about 'SCO=s e@pected pac7a#es t(o o! th!ee
ti"es a (ee7 o! so"eti"es dail$.
5
9audit testified that in the fou! $ea!s he had 7no(n
Evan#elista, he had seen hi" onl$ about five ti"es, (hile he had been seein# accused-
appellant !e#ula!l$1
EISC'9 %ERON1
H No(, do $ou 7no( of a pe!son b$ the na"e of eodo!o
Evan#elistaD
' edd$ Evan#elista, not eodo!o.
H ?h$ do $ou 7no( edd$D
' %ecause he (as one of the facilitato!sIfo!(a!de!s the!e (ho
has so"e co""e!cial pa!cels the!e that a!e co"in# f!o"
ab!oad si!.
H Since (hen have $ou 7no(n edd$ Evan#elistaD
' Since fou! -+0 $ea!s a#o si!.
6
. . . .
H 6o( often (as edd$ Evan#elista in $ou! office fo! the fou!
-+0 $ea!s that $ou sa$ had been in this business of facilitatin#
!elease of pa!celsD
' I have seen hi" onl$ a "a@i"u" of five -/0 ti"es.
COAR1
H Eive -/0 ti"es du!in# the fou! $ea!sD
' Bes, Bou! 6ono! because he seldo" co"es to the office. It
is onl$ on$in# (ho #oes to . . .
H ?ho is that on$in# that $ou "entionedD
' on$in#, that fello( seated the!e Bou! 6ono!.
-(itness app!oachin# the #alle!$ and tap KsicL the shoulde! of
a "an (ho !esponded to the na"e on$in# Co"ia0
COAR1
H 6e is the one accused he!eD
' Bes, Bou! 6ono!.
H ?hat about hi", (h$ did $ou "ention hi" (hen I (as
as7in# $ou about edd$ Evan#elistaD
H on$in# is the one (ho f!e4uents ou! office to follo( up thei!
i"po!tations.
,
Even #!antin# that Co"ia acted in #ood faith, he cannot escape c!i"inal !esponsibilit$. he
c!i"e (ith (hich he is cha!#ed is a malum prohibitum. 9ac7 of c!i"inal intent and #ood faith
a!e not e@e"ptin# ci!cu"stances. 's held inPeople v. Lo Ho Wing1
-
Mo!eove!, the act of t!anspo!tin# a p!ohibited d!u# is a ;malum prohibitum;
because it is punished as an offense unde! a special la(. It is a (!on#
because it is p!ohibited b$ la(. ?ithout the la( punishin# the act, it cannot be
conside!ed a (!on#. 's such, the "e!e co""ission of said act is (hat
constitutes the offense punished and suffices to validl$ cha!#e and convict an
individual cau#ht co""ittin# the act so punished, !e#a!dless of c!i"inal
intent.
9i7e(ise, in People v. Bayona, it (as held1
he !ule is that in acts mala in se the!e "ust be a c!i"inal intent, but in
those mala prohibita it is sufficient if the p!ohibited act (as intentionall$ done.
;Ca!e "ust be e@e!cised in distin#uishin# the diffe!ence bet(een the intent to
co""it the c!i"e and the intent to pe!pet!ate to act.;
9
Indeed, Co"ia cannot clai" to have acted in #ood faith. Even assu"in# that he did not 7no(
that the pac7a#es contained shabu, the fact is that he t!ied to facilitate the i"po!tation of
dutiable #oods f!ee of custo"s duties. It co"es as a su!p!ise the!efo!e that in "ovin# fo! the
ac4uittal of accused-appellant the Solicito! 5ene!al should do(npla$ o! "ini"i3e the !ole of
accused-appellant b$ insistin# that the latte! (as a ;"e!e e"plo$ee; (ho did not have a
choice ;but to assent to (hateve! his e"plo$e! (anted to do,; and that ;besides, this
p!actice of 'SCO of usin# diffe!ent add!essed fo! a client has been ad"itted b$ no less
than its "ana#e!, 9$dia Di3on he!self.;
1.
he fact is that accused-appellant 'ntonio Co"ia #ave his consent fo! the i"po!te!s of the
ille#al ca!#o to use his na"e fo! the pu!pose of concealin# it f!o" the autho!ities. 6e cannot
no( (ash his hands and sa$ he did not 7no( that the$ (ould use his na"e to i"po!t shabu.
6e #ave the" license to use his na"e fo! (hateve! pu!pose and it (as not at all
unfo!eseeable that clients could e"plo$ the sche"e to i"po!t shabu o! othe! d!u#s and
othe! cont!aband.
Second. 'ccused-appellant a!#ues that the t!ial cou!t also e!!ed in !el$in# upon the
testi"on$ of 9$dia Di3on that Ma!$ On# neve! used Co"ia=s na"e, on the basis of (hich the
t!ial cou!t concluded that Co"ia had acted on his o(n to#ethe! (ith his co-conspi!ato!s.
'ccused-appellant clai"s that Di3on had eve!$ !eason to i"plicate hi" -Co"ia0 as the sole
pe!pet!ato! of the c!i"e because as "ana#e! of 'SCO she 7ne( she could possibl$ be
i"plicated in the c!i"e. 'ccused-appellant points out that it (as upon he! inst!uction that
Co"ia had #one to 'DC on Septe"be! 8, *22, to in4ui!e about the a!!ival of the pa!cels.
%ut (hile this "a$ be t!ue, as al!ead$ discussed the evidence a#ainst Co"ia, even (ithout
Di3on=s testi"on$, is sufficient to suppo!t a findin# of his #uilt.
Third. 'ppellant a!#ues fu!the! that he cannot be convicted of conspi!ac$ because the cases
a#ainst his alle#ed co-conspi!ato!s, Ma!$ On# and 5o Shiu 9in#, (e!e dis"issed.
he contention is (ithout "e!it. In People v. Dramayo,
11
the Cou!t affi!"ed the conviction of
t(o out of seven conspi!ato!s o!i#inall$ accused of "u!de!. his Cou!t noted that the!e had
been cases (he!e, not(ithstandin# that a "a<o!it$ of the defendants have been ac4uitted,
the accused had been held !esponsible fo! the c!i"e cha!#ed, a "o!al ce!taint$ havin#
a!isen as to thei! culpabilit$.
1*
'CCORDIN59B, the <ud#"ent appealed f!o" is 'EEIRMED. Pu!suant to )*M of Republic 'ct
No. M./2, ho(eve!, the penalt$ of life i"p!ison"ent is MODIEIED to reclusion perpetua.
SO ORDERED.
Peo/0e 12. Go
S345 L4&6
5.R. No. **/*/
. Dece"be! *+
, *22/
F%c728
he Re#ional
!ial Cou!t of
Pasa$ Cit$
finds accused-
appellant
'ntonioCo"ia
#uilt$ of
conspi!in# (ith
fou! othe!s to
i"po!t
!e#ulated
d!u#s in
violationof '!t.
III, Section *+
in !elation to
'!ticle IV,
Section ,* of
the Dan#e!ous
D!u#s'ct -Rep.
'ct No. .+,/,
as a"ended0.
I225e8
?hethe! o! not
a c!i"e fo!
violation of
Dan#e!ous
D!u#s 'ct is a
c!i"e"alu"
p!ohibitu"D
R504&68
Even #!antin#
that Co"ia
acted in #ood
faith, he cannot
escape
c!i"inal!espon
sibilit$. he
c!i"e (ith
(hich he is
cha!#ed is a
malum
prohibitum
. 9ac7
of c!i"inal
intent and #ood
faith a!e not
e@e"ptin#
ci!cu"stances.
's held in
Peoplev
.
Lo Ho Wing
1Mo!eove!, the
act of t!anspo!
tin# a p!ohibit
ed d!u# is a;
malum
prohibitum
; because it is
punished as
an
offenseunde! a
special la(. It
is a (!on#
because it is
p!ohibited
b$la(. ?ithou
t the la( puni
shin# the act,
it cannot beco
nside!ed a
(!on#. 's
such, the "e!e
co""ission of
saidact is (hat
constitutes the
offense
punished and
suffices
tovalidl$
cha!#e and
convict an
individual
cau#ht
co""ittin#the
act so
punished,
!e#a!dless of
c!i"inal
intent.9i7e(ise,
in
People v
.
Bayona
, it (as
held1he !ule
is that in acts
mala in se
the!e "ust be
a
c!i"inalintent,
but in those
mala prohibita
it is sufficient
if thep!ohibite
d act (as inte
ntionall$ done
. ;Ca!e "ust b
ee@e!cised in
distin#uishin#
the diffe!ence
bet(een the
intentto co""it
the c!i"e and
the intent to
pe!pet!ate to
act.;