People v.

Dequina
(People Of The Philippine v. Nelida Dequina Y Dimapanan, Joselito Jundoc Y Japitana & Nora
Jingabo Y Cruz)
G.R. No. 177570
January 19, 2011
Leonardo-De Castro, J
Article 12 Revised Penal Code
Exempting Circumstance Irresistible Force or Uncontrollable Fear
Facts: Herein respondents, Dequina, Jundoc and Jingabo were charged under the provisions of RA
6425 (Dangerous Drugs act of 1972) as amended by RA 7659, for selling distributing and
transporting several packs of marijuana weighing approximately 11,000 grams each 3 packs.
The arrest took place at Tondo Manila when PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco was
instructed that there would be 1 male and 2 female coming from Baguio to deliver an unknown
quantity of marijuana. At around 6am in the designated place, the police officers saw 3 individual
heading towards the pier, suspecting that the said persons were the one on the look-out; the
police officers trailed them until they were noticed by the 3 individual prompting them to run and
dropped the bag revealing accidentally the dried marijuana. But they were still got arrested.
In the defense of the appellant, Dequina, she said that she was invited by a women name
Sally to join KMU, a leftist group. She was then ordered by Sally to invite 2 more friends to
accompany her in their journey in delivering a bag to Manila. Thinking of backing out, she was
threatened that something bad will happen to her child if she refused in Sallys heeding. She was
told that she have to fetch some bags, together with her 2 friends, in Pampangga. After they
have received the bag, they headed bound to manila, where they got arrested.
Issue: If Dequina acted in irresistible fear in transporting the illegal drugs, thus exempting her
from criminal liabilities? *Is the arrest legal?*
Held: No. Dequina should be convicted.
The force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere
instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. The compulsion must be of such of
such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat. A threat to future is not enough. It is simply contemporary to human experience that the
people behind the shipment would entrust the same to an unknowing and uncertain person such
as Dequina and the other two. There was conspiracy in the facts, not directly but it can be
deduced from the mode or manner it was perpetrated.
*The arrest is legal the accused was caught in flagrante delicto, their warrantless search was
incidental to their lawful arrest.*
The quantity of marijuana involved in this case weighs 32,995 grams, hence, the applicable
penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Since the imposable penalty is composed of two
indivisible penalties, the rules for the application of indivisible penalties under Article 63 of the
Revised Penal Code should be applied. As there is neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstance in the commission of the crime, the RTC correctly imposed the lesser penalty of
reclusion perpetua.Dequina et al is found guilty.