SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 139301. September 29, 2004]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. HUANG ZHEN HUA and

JOGY LEE, appellants.
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Paraaque City, Metro Manila, Branch 259, convicting the appellants of
violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
[1]

The Case for the Prosecution

Police operatives of the Public Assistance and Reaction Against Crime
(PARAC) under the Department of Interior and Local Government received
word from their confidential informant that Peter Chan and Henry Lao, and
appellants Jogy Lee and Huang Zhen Hua were engaged in illegal drug
trafficking. The policemen also learned that appellant Lee was handling the
payments and accounting of the proceeds of the illegal drug trafficking activities
of Lao and Chan. PO3 Belliardo Anciro, Jr. and other police operatives
conducted surveillance operations and were able to verify that Lao and
appellant Lee were living together as husband and wife. They once spotted
Chan, Lao, the appellants and two others, in a seafood restaurant in Bocobo
Street, Ermita, Manila, late in the evening. On another occasion, the policemen
saw Chan, Lao, and the appellants, at the Celicious Restaurant along R.
Sanchez Street, Ermita, Manila, at about 8:30 p.m. They were spotted the third
time at the Midtown Hotel at about 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The police operatives
also verified that Chan and Lao resided at Room Nos. 1245 and 1247, Cityland
Condominium, De la Rosa Street, Makati City, and in a two-storey condominium
unit at No. 19 Atlantic Drive, Pacific Grand Villa, Sto. Nio, Paraaque, Metro
Manila.
[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

On October 25, 1996, SPO2 Cesar N. Teneros of the PARAC secured

Search Warrant No. 96-801 for violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866

(illegal possession of firearms and explosives) and Search Warrant No. 96-802,
for violation of Sections 12, 14 and 16 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, from
Judge William M. Bayhon, Executive Judge of the RTC of Manila. Senior
Police Inspector Lucio Margallo supervised the enforcement of Search Warrant
No. 96-801 at the Cityland Condominium at about 11:00 p.m. on October 29,
1996. With him were PO3 Anciro, Jr., PO3 Wilhelm Castillo, SPO3 Roger
Ferias and seven other policemen of the PARAC, who were all in uniform, as
well as a Cantonese interpreter by the name of Chuang. While no persons were
found inside, the policemen found two kilos of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, popularly known as shabu, paraphernalia for its production, and
machines and tools apparently used for the production of fake credit cards.
[6]

[7]

Thereafter, the police operatives received information that Lao and Chan
would be delivering shabu at the Furama Laser Karaoke Restaurant at the
corner of Dasmarias and Mancha Streets, Manila. The policemen rushed to
the area on board their vehicles. It was 2:00 a.m. of October 26, 1996. The
policemen saw Chan and Lao on board the latters Honda Civic car. As the two
men alighted, one of the men approached them and introduced himself, but
Chan and Lao fired shots. Thus, a shoot-out ensued between the members of
the raiding team and the two suspects. Chan and Lao were shot to death during
the encounter. The policemen found two plastic bags, each containing one kilo
of shabu, in Laos car.
The policemen then proceeded to No. 19 Atlantic Drive, Pacific Grand Villa,
to enforce Search Warrant No. 96-802. When the policemen arrived at the
place, they coordinated with Antonio Pangan, the officer in charge of security in
the building. The men found that the Condominium Unit No. 19 was leased to
Lao under the name Henry Kao Tsung. The policemen, Pangan and two
security guards of the Pacific Grand Villa proceeded to the condominium
unit.
Anciro, Jr. knocked repeatedly on the front door, but no one
responded. Pangan, likewise, knocked on the door. Appellant Lee peeped
through the window beside the front door. The men introduced themselves as
policemen, but the appellant could not understand them as she could not
speak English. The policemen allowed Pangan to communicate with appellant
Lee by sign language and pointed their uniforms to her to show that they were
policemen. The appellant then opened the door and allowed the policemen,
Pangan and the security guards into the condominium unit. The policemen
brought appellant Lee to the second floor where there were three bedrooms
a masters bedroom and two other rooms. When asked where she and Lao
slept, appellant Lee pointed to the masters bedroom. Anciro, Jr., Margallo and
PO3 Wilhelm Castillo then searched the masters bedroom, while Ferias and
Pangan went to the other bedroom where appellant Zhen Hua was
[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

sleeping. Ferias awakened appellant Zhen Hua and identified himself as a

policeman. Appellant Zhen Hua was surprised.
[15]

[16]

Anciro, Jr. saw a small cabinet inside the masters bedroom about six feet
high. He stood on a chair, opened the cabinet and found two transparent plastic
bags each containing one kilo of shabu, a feeding bottle, a plastic
canister and assorted paraphernalia. Inside the drawer of the beds
headboard, Anciro, Jr. also found assorted documents, pictures, bank
passbooks issued by the Allied Banking Corporation, credit cards, passports
and identification cards of Lao and Lee. Anciro, Jr. asked appellant Lee who
was the owner of the crystalline substance, but the latter did not respond
because she did not know English. Anciro, Jr. asked Margallo for instructions
on what to do with the things he had found, and the latter told him to keep the
same for future reference, and as evidence against any other suspect for
illegal drug transactions. Anciro, Jr., Pangan and Margallo later showed the
seized articles to the other members of the team.
[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

Anciro, Jr. told appellant Lee to bring some of her clothes because they
were bringing her to the PARAC headquarters. Appellant Lee did as she was
told and took some clothes from the cabinet in the masters bedroom where
Anciro, Jr. had earlier found the shabu.
[25]

The policemen brought the appellants to the PARAC headquarters. The

following articles were found and confiscated by the policemen in the
condominium unit:
a. TWO (2) Big Transparent Plastic Bags containing about one (1) Kilo each of white
crystalline granules later tested to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or Shabu, a
regulated drug;
b. ONE (1) Transparent Plastic Baby Feeding Bottle containing an undetermined
quantity of suspected Shabu;
c. ONE (1) Small Plastic Cannister also containing undetermined amount of
suspected Shabu .
d. Assorted Pieces of Shabu Paraphernalia consisting of Improvised Tooters used for
sniffing shabu, Improvised Burners used for burning Shabu, aluminum foils, etc.;
[26]

Anciro, Jr. placed the articles he found in the cabinet inside a box. The
appellants were then brought to the PARAC headquarters where they were
detained. Pangan signed a Certification that the search conducted by the
policemen had been orderly and peaceful. Anciro, Jr. affixed his initials on the
[27]

[28]

transparent plastic bags and their contents, the transparent baby feeding bottle
and the plastic cannister and their contents. On October 26, 1996, he and
Ferias brought the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory
examination along with the letter-request thereon.
[29]

[30]

[31]

On the same day, Forensic Chemist Officer Isidro L. Cario signed

Chemistry Report No. D-1243-96 which contained his findings on the laboratory
examination of the items which were marked as Exhibits A to A-4, viz:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
Exh. A One (1) must de Cartier Paris carton containing the following:
Exh. A-1 One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag containing 1,000.40 grams of
white crystalline substance.
Exh. A-2 One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag containing 998.10 grams of
white crystalline substance.
Exh. A-3 One (1) transparent plastic Babyflo Nurser feeding bottle with pink
cover containing 18.52 grams of white crystalline substance.
Exh. A-4 One (1) transparent plastic container with white cover containing 3.28
grams of white crystalline substance.
NOTE: The above-stated specimen were allegedly taken from the residence of the
above-named subjects. xxx
PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
To determine the presence of prohibited and/or regulated drug.
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimens, Exhs. A-1
through A-4 gave POSITIVE result to the test for Methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a regulated drug. xxx
[32]

The police officers executed an affidavit of arrest. Pangan and the two
security guards signed a certification stating that nothing was destroyed in the
condominium unit and that the search was orderly and peaceful. The
policemen also accomplished an inventory of the articles seized during the
search.
[33]

[34]

[35]

The appellants were charged of violation of Section 16, Rep. Act No. 6425,
as amended, in an Information filed in the RTC of Paraaque, Metro Manila, the
accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 26th day of October 1996, in the Municipality of Paraaque,
Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them
mutually helping and aiding one another, not being lawfully authorized to possess or
otherwise use any regulated drug and without the corresponding license or
prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have, in their
possession and under their control and custody, the following to wit:
A. One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag containing 1,000.40 grams of white
crystalline substance;
B. One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag containing 998.1 grams of white
crystalline substance;
C. One (1) transparent plastic Babyflo Nurser feeding bottle with pink cover
containing 18.52 grams of white crystalline substance;
D. One (1) transparent plastic container with white cover containing 3.28 grams of
white crystalline substance
which when examined were found to be positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
(Shabu), a regulated drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

[36]

Both appellants, assisted by counsel, were duly arraigned on November 29,

1992, and pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The Case for the Appellants
Appellant Jogy Lee denied the charge. She testified that she was a resident
of Kwantong, China, a college graduate who could not speak nor understand
English. She was once employed in a real estate firm. One of her coemployees was Huang Zhen Hua. She met Henry Lao in China sometime in
1995, and he brought her to Belgium that same year. Lao also helped her
procure a Belguim passport, for he explained that if she only had a Chinese
passport, it would be difficult to secure visas from countries she wanted to go
[37]

[38]

to and visit; whereas many countries did not require a Belgian passport holder
to secure visas before allowing entry therein. In the process, he and Lao fell in
love and became lovers.
Upon Laos invitation, appellant Lee visited the Philippines as a tourist for
the first time in April 1996. Lao met her at the airport, and she was, thereafter,
brought to a hotel in Manila where she stayed for less than a month. She
returned to the Philippines a second time and was again billeted in a hotel in
Manila. All her expenses were shouldered by Lao, who was engaged in the
garlic business. As far as she knew, Lao was not engaged in any other
business. In June 1996, she invited her friend, appellant Huang Zhen Hua to
visit the Philippines to enjoy the tourist spots. They were then in China.
[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

In the evening of October 1, 1996, appellant Lee returned to the Philippines

on a tourist visa. She was fetched by Lao, and she was brought to his
condominium unit at No. 19, Atlantic Drive, Pacific Grand Villa, Sto. Nio,
Paraaque. She had been residing there since then. She and Lao used to go
to the shopping malls and she even saw Chan once when he cleaned his
Nissan car in Laos garage.
[43]

On October 22, 1996, appellant Zhen Hua arrived from China at the NAIA
and was met by Lao at the airport. He tried to check in at the Diamond Hotel
but Lee told him that he could stay in the condominium unit. Zhen Hua was
brought to the Villa where he had been staying since then. The appellants had
made plans to visit Cebu.
At about 6:00 a.m. on October 26, 1996, appellant Lee was sleeping in the
masters bedroom at the condominium unit. She had closed all the windows
because she had turned the air conditioning unit on. Zhen Hua was sleeping in
the other bedroom in the second floor beside the masters bedroom. Laos
Honda Civic car and Chans Nissan car were in the garage beside the
condominium unit. Momentarily, Lee heard someone knocking on the bedroom
door. When she opened it, three (3) policemen barged into the bedroom and
at the room where appellant Zhen Hua was sleeping. Anciro, Jr. was not among
the men. Lee did not hear the policemen knock at the main door before they
entered. The policemen were accompanied by Chuang, a Cantonese
interpreter, who told her that the policemen were going to search the
house. Appellant Lee saw a policeman holding two papers, but no search
warrant was shown to her. She was so frightened.
[44]

[45]

[46]

The policemen placed two plastic bags on the bed before they searched the
masters bedroom. Appellant Lee went to the room of appellant Zhen Hua and
when she returned to the masters bedroom, she saw shabu on the bed. The
policemen took her ring, watch and the P600,000 owned by Lao which had
[47]

earlier been placed in the cabinet, her papers and documents, and those of
Laos as well. She had never seen any shabu in the room before the
incident. Thereafter, she and appellant Zhen Hua were brought to the PARAC
headquarters where they were detained. Chuang, the cantonese interpreter,
informed her that shabu had been found in the condominium unit and that the
policemen were demanding P5,000,000 for her release. She was also told that
if she did not pay the amount, she would be charged with drug trafficking, and
that the leader of the group who arrested her would be promoted. However,
she told Chuang that she had no money. Since she could not pay the amount,
she was boarded on a PARAC owner-type jeep and returned to the
condominium unit where the policemen took all the household appliances, such
as the television, compact discs, washing machine, including laundry
detergent. Only the sofa and the bed were not taken. About ten (10) days later,
the appellants secured the services of counsel.
Antonio Pangan testified that he and the policemen knocked on the door to
the condominium unit but that no one responded. He shouted, Sir Henry,
referring to Lao, but there was no response from inside the condominium. After
about three (3) to five (5) minutes, a policeman kicked the door open and they
entered the house. They went to the second floor and saw the appellants
sleeping.
Pangan testified that he did not see any shabu that was seized by the
policemen. He learned that shabu had been found and taken from the
condominium unit only when he saw someone holding up the substance on
television during the daily news program TV Patrol.
[48]

Appellant Zhen Hua also denied the charge. He corroborated the testimony
of appellant Lee that upon her invitation, he arrived in the Philippines on a tourist
visa on October 22, 1996. He claimed that he did not see Anciro, Jr. in the
condominium unit when policemen arrived and searched the house. He
testified that aside from the PARAC policemen, he was also investigated by
policemen from Taiwan.
After trial, the court rendered judgment on January 10, 1999, convicting both
appellants of the crime charged. The decretal portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, finding accused Jogy Lee and Huang
Zhen Hua GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sec. 16, Art. III, RA
6425, as amended by RA 7659, and considering the absence of any aggravating
circumstances, this Court hereby sentences both accused to suffer the penalty
of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 each. The properties seized in
accordance with the search warrants issued relative to this case are hereby ordered

confiscated in favor of the government and the Clerk of Court of this Court is directed
to turn over to the Dangerous Drugs Board, the drugs and paraphernalia subject hereof
for proper disposition.
The Clerk of Court is also directed to prepare the Mittimus for the immediate transfer
of both accused Jogy Lee and Huang Zhen Hua from the Paraaque City Jail to the
Bureau of Correccions (sic) in Muntinlupa City.
SO ORDERED.

[49]

The Present Appeal

On appeal to this Court, appellant Zhen Hua, asserts that:
First. The evidence for the prosecution, as a whole, is so far as self-contradictory,
inherently improbable and palpably false to be accepted as a faithful reflection of the
true facts of the case;
Second. Appellant Huang Zhen Huas conviction was based merely on the trial
courts conclusion that he is not an epitome of first class tourist and that he appeared
nonchalant throughout the proceedings;
Third. In convicting said appellant, the court below completely disregarded the
glaring facts and admissions of the prosecutions principal witnesses that no regulated
drug was ever found in his possession;
Fourth. The trial court, likewise, ignored the fact that the appellants arrest was illegal
and in violation of his constitutional and basic rights against arrest without probable
cause as determined by a Judge and that his arraignment did not constitute a waiver of
such right;
Fifth. The trial court failed to consider the fact that the presumption of regularity of
performance of the police officers who took part in the search had been overcome by
prosecution's own evidence, thereby wrongly giving such presumption substance over
and above the constitutional presumption of innocence of the appellant.
[50]

For her part, appellant Lee contends that:

1.01 THE ALLEGED TWO KILOS OF SHABU FOUND INSIDE ONE OF THE ROOMS
IN THE TOWNHOUSE RENTED BY HENRY LAU WERE MERELY PLANTED
BY PARAC OPERATIVES;

1.02

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS HIGHLY

IRREGULAR, DUBIOUS AND UNREASONABLE AS THE SEARCH WARRANT
DID NOT CONTAIN ANY PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION OF THE ROOM TO BE
SEARCHED, NOR WAS THERE ANY INTERPRETER TO ASSIST AND GUIDE
JOGY LEE, WHO NEITHER KNEW NOR UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE, DURING THE SEARCH AND EVEN DURING THE TRIAL;

2.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED JOGY LEE

UPON THE GROUND THAT HER GUILT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY PROOF
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[51]

For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) posits that appellant
Zhen Hua should be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt, but that the
conviction of appellant Lee should be affirmed.
The Courts Ruling
We shall delve into and resolve the assigned errors of the appellants Huang
Zhen Hua and Jogy Lee sequentially.
On Appellant Zhen Hua
The OSG contends that the prosecution failed to muster the requisite
quantum of evidence to prove appellant Zhen Huas guilt beyond reasonable
doubt for the crime charged, thus:
Huang Zhen Hua denies having anything to do with the bags of shabu found in the
townhouse unit of Henry Lau. He claims that he arrived in the Philippines as a tourist
on October 22, 1996, upon the invitation of Jogy Lee. Allegedly, at the time of his
arrest, he had been in the Philippines for barely four days. He claims that he was just
temporarily billeted as a guest at the townhouse where Jogy Lee was staying. And that
he had no control whatsoever over said townhouse. He puts emphasis on the fact that
the search of his room turned out to be negative and that the raiding team failed to
seize or confiscate any prohibited or regulated drug in his person or possession. He,
therefore, prays for his acquittal.
The People submits that Huang Zhen Hua is entitled to acquittal. The prosecutions
evidence fails to meet the quantum of evidence required to overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence; thus, regardless of the supposed weakness of
his defense, and his innocence may be doubted, he is nonetheless entitled to an
acquittal (Natividad v. Court of Appeals, 98 SCRA 335 (1980), cited in People v.
Fronda, G.R. No. 130602, March 15, 2000). The constitutional presumption of
innocence guaranteed to every individual is of primary importance, and the conviction

of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the
evidence for the prosecution.
In the instant case, as pointed out by appellant Huang Zhen Hua, the trial court erred
when it did not give much weight to the admission made by the prosecution witnesses
that no regulated drug was found in his person. No regulated drug was also found
inside his room or in his other belongings such as suitcases, etc. Thus, he had no
actual or constructive possession of the confiscated shabu.
Moreover, it is not disputed that Huang Zhen Hua had only been in the country for
barely four (4) days at the time when he was arrested. The prosecution was unable to
show that in these four (4) days Huang Zhen Hua committed acts which showed that
he was in cahoots with the drug syndicate Henry Lau and Peter Chan. It was not even
shown that he was together with Henry Lau and Peter Chan on any occasion. As for
Huang Zhen Hua, therefore, there is no direct evidence of any culpability. Nor is there
any circumstantial evidence from which any culpability may be inferred.
[52]

We agree with the OSG. In a case of recent vintage, this Court, in People
vs. Tira, ruminated and expostulated on the juridical concept of possession
under Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, and the
evidence necessary to prove the said crime, thus:
[53]

The essential elements of the crime of possession of regulated drugs are the following:
(a) the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not
authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and, (c) the accused has
knowledge that the