Infiltrated

This is a case showing how to infiltrate and catch organized crime syndicates engaged in drug trafficking. Our law enforcers who will resume their war on drugs should perhaps adopt this method in their effort to eradicate the drug problem instead of just chasing and summarily killing suspected drug users and pushers under “oplan tokhang.” They should concentrate more on the root cause or the source of the prohibited drugs particularly the drug lords rather than on mere victims of these illegal activities. The issue here is about the validity of a warrantless search and the utilization of a co-accused as a State witness.

This is the case of Rene Tirador, a deep penetration agent recruited by the police special operations group after it received a tip from an informer about a syndicate engaged in the importation of illegal drugs, smuggling of contraband goods and gunrunning.

Tirador was introduced by another confidential agent to Tony Kho, a Chinese who wanted to hire a male travelling companion for his business trips abroad. He offered his services and was hired by Kho. They met on several occasions to make arrangements for a trip to China. In the course of those meetings Tirador was introduced to another Chinese William Lee who was actually the person he was to accompany to China in lieu of Kho.

Lee and Tirador flew to Guangzhou China via Hong Kong, After checking in a hotel and resting a few hours, they went to a local store to purchase six tin cans of tea containing paper tea bags. Lee informed Tirador that their cargo consisted of Chinese drugs.

Two days later, the two flew back to Manila with Lee checking in a red travelling bag containing their cargo of six tin cans of tea which were not closely examined and was thus cleared. Upon arrival in Manila, Kho met them and talked to Lee as Tirador looked after the luggage. Then Lee and Tirador boarded a taxicab and placed the bags inside the luggage compartment. Koh followed in another cab.

Meanwhile six operatives of police special operations group headed by Captain Palma proceeded to the airport acting on the tip of Tirador. They took strategic positions after coordinating with the Narcotics Command (NARCOM). Upon seeing Lee and Tirador leave the airport the operatives overtook the cab and cut into its path while the cab of Kho sped away in an effort to escape. The operatives then approached the cab ridden by Lee and Tirador and ask the driver to open the luggage compartment where they found three pieces of luggage. The red travelling bag of Lee yielded six tin cans with 56 paper tea bags containing crystalline powder instead of tea leaves. The tea bags were then sent by one of the operatives, Sgt. Castillo, to the PC Crime Lab which found that they contain metamphetamine or “shabu,” in street parlance.

And so after Kho was likewise caught and arrested, the three suspects were charged with violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. 6425 for conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, to deliver, dispatch and transport 56 tea bags of shabu. After trial, only Lee and Kho were convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine and the costs of suit. Tirador was discharged as a state witness.

William Lee appealed his conviction. He contended among others, (1) that the search and seizure conducted by the police operatives was illegal for lack of search warrant and (2)  that Tirador should not have been discharged as a state witness because as a deep penetration agent he has to take risks and accept the consequences of his actions. Was he correct?

No, said the Supreme Court. Whenever the object of the search is on a moving vehicle that can transport the contraband from one place to another no search warrant is necessary on the ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be obtained. The search of a moving vehicle is therefore a well recognized exception to the rule that a search and seizure must be supported by a valid search warrant. In this case the law enforcers caught Lee and his co-accused transporting or carrying and conveying a prohibited drug in flagrante delicto from one place to another. They have in fact already violated Section 15 Article III of R.A. 6425 whether or not  the place of destination is reached.

On the other hand the discharge of Tirador to be a State witness is based on Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court which provides among others that upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be State witnesses. The discharge of Tirador is therefore left to the discretion of the lower court. In this case Lee has not alleged that any of the conditions for the discharge of Tirador has not been met by the prosecution. Therefore the discharge of Tirador as ordered by the lower court stands. In fact the testimony of Tirador was even corroborated by Sgt Castillo which bolsters the validity of the questioned discharge because the rule on discharge requires that his testimony be substantially corroborated in its material points (People vs Lo Ho Wing alias Peter Lo etc., G.R. 88017, January 21, 1991).

Email: [email protected]