FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 220732, September 06, 2016
ELMER G. SINDAC @ "TAMER," Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated May 26, 2015 and the Resolution3 dated September 18, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR. No. 35413, which affirmed the Decision4 dated October 31, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Infanta, Quezon, Branch 65 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 2866-1 finding petitioner Elmer G. Sindac @ "Tamer" (Sindac) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,5 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
That on or about the 17th day of April, 2007, at Brgy. Poblacion Uno, in the Municipality of Real, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody one (1) transparent plastic pack containing white crystalline substance weighing 0.04 gram which when examined, gave positive results to the tests for methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug.The prosecution alleged that from March 15, 2007 to April 30, 2007, the Philippine National Police, Real, Quezon (PNP Real), conducted surveillance operations on Sindac's alleged drug trade. At around 7 o'clock in the morning of April 17, 2007, the PNP Real conducted a briefing, and thereafter, proceeded to the port of Barangay Ungos. There, PO3 Bonifacio Peñamora (PO3 Peñamora) and PO1 Erbert Asis (PO1 Asis) saw Sindac headed for Barangay Poblacion Uno, prompting them to follow him. Along the national road of said barangay, PO3 Peñamora and PO1 Asis saw Sindac meet with a certain Alladin Cañon (Cañon) who sold and handed over a plastic sachet to him. Suspecting that the sachet contained shabu, PO3 Peñamora and PO1 Asis rushed to the scene and introduced themselves as police officers. Cañon escaped but the policemen were able to apprehend Sindac. When ordered to empty his pocket, Sindac brought out his wallet which contained a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. After initially determining that such substance is shabu, the policemen arrested Sindac and brought him to the police station. There, Sindac's arrest was recorded, the seized item was marked in Sindac's presence, and a request for chemical test was prepared. A laboratory examination later confirmed that the plastic sachet seized from Sindac contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.9chanrobleslaw
CONTRARY TO LAW8chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant arrest a person:The aforementioned provision identifies three (3) instances when warrantless arrests may be lawfully effected. These are: (a) an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) an arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been committed; and (c) an arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.27chanrobleslaw
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and cralawlawlibrary
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112.
[Prosecutor Cherry May P. Avellano (Fiscal Avellano)]: Where did this selling of shabu take place?Considering that PO3 Peñamora was at a considerable distance away from the alleged criminal transaction (five [5] to ten [10] meters), not to mention the atomity of the object thereof (0.04 gram of white crystalline substance31 contained in a plastic sachet), the Court finds it highly doubtful that said arresting officer was able to reasonably ascertain that any criminal activity was afoot so as to prompt him to conduct a lawful in flagrante delicto arrest and, thereupon, a warrantless search. These similar circumstances were availing in the cases of Comerciante v. People32 and People v. Villareal33 where the Court likewise invalidated the in flagrante delcito arrest and ensuing warrantless search. In this relation, it should also be pointed out that no criminal overt act could be properly attributed to Sindac so as to rouse any reasonable suspicion in the mind of either PO3 Peñamora or PO1 Asis that Sindac had just committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. Sindac's actuations of talking to and later on, receiving an unidentified object from Cañon, without more, should not be considered as ongoing criminal activity that would render proper an in flagrante delicto arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[PO3 Peñamora]: At Poblacion Uno, Real, Quezon, ma'am.
[Fiscal Avellano]: How did you know that there were selling of shabu that took place at Poblacion Uno, Real, Quezon [(Poblacion Uno)]?
[PO3 Peñamora]: We followed him from Ungos to [Poblacion Uno], ma'am.
[Fiscal Avellano]: Where in particular did you proceed in [Poblacion Uno] wherein you followed him?
[PO3 Peñamora]: Along the national road, ma'am.
[Fiscal Avellano]: When you saw [Sindacl selling shabu, how far were you located to that person?
[PO3 Peñamora]: 5 to 10 meters ma'am.
[Fiscal Avellano]: When you said there was selling of shabu, what was the participation of [Sindac] in the selling?
[PO3 Peñamora]: He was the buyer, ma'am.
[Fiscal Avellano]: Who was the seller then?
[PO3 Peñamora]: Alladin Cañon alias Indong, ma'am.
[Fiscal Avellano]: What did [Cañon] do when you said he was selling shabu to [Sindac]?
[PO3 Peñamora]: He handed the shabu to [Sindac], ma'am.
[Fiscal Avellano]: And what did [Sindac] do when [Cañon] handed shabu to [Sindac]?
[PO3 Peñamora]: He took it, ma'am.
[Fiscal Avellano]: What did he do after he took the shabu?
[PO3 Peñamora]: He kept the shabu in his hand, ma'am.
[Fiscal Avellano]: After [Sindac] kept the shabu in his hand, what did you do next?
[PO3 Peñamora]: We approached them, ma'am.
x x x x
[Fiscal Avellano]: After you arrested [Sindac], what did you do next if there was any?
[PO3 Peñamora]: We searched his pocket ma'am.
[Fiscal Avellano]: Were you the one who personally searched the pocket of [Sindac]?
[PO3 Peñamora]: No ma'am, we ordered him to put out his wallet?
[Fiscal Avellano]: Did he comply with your order?
[PO3 Peñamora]: Yes ma'am.
[Fiscal Avellano]: What did he do?
[PO3 Peñamora]: He turned out his pocket and showed his wallet, ma'am.
COURT
[Presiding Judge Arnelo C. Mesa (Judge Mesa)]: What was the result of that turning over his pocket and showing his wallet?
[PO3 Peñamora]: From his wallet I saw a small plastic folded, Your Honor.
[Judge Mesa]: Upon seeing this small plastic folded inside the pocket of his wallet, what transpired next if any?
[PO3 Peñamora]: As a policeman, I suspected it as shabu so I ordered him to take out the small plastic, Your Honor.
x x x x
[Judge Mesa]: Was it containing something?
[PO3 Peñamora]: Yes, Your Honor.
[Judge Mesa]: What was the content?
[PO3 Peñamora]: Crystalline substance, Your Honor.
[Judge Mesa]: Was there a color of the crystalline substance?
[PO3 Peñamora]: Colorless, looks like a tawas, Your Honor.
[Judge Mesa]: After he took out and showed to you this folded small plastic, what transpired next?
[PO3 Peñamora]: I took it from him, Your Honor.
x x x x
[Fiscal Avellano]: After you took that plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, what did you do next if any?
x x x x
[PO3 Peñamora]: I concluded that it to be a suspected shabu and I informed him that I will bring him to the police station and we arrested him, ma'am.
[Fiscal Avellano]: After you arrested him, what did you do next?
[PO3 Peñamora]: We brought him to the Municipal Police Station, we entered the matter to the police blotter and we prepared a receipt for evidence seized, ma'am. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
To interpret "personal knowledge" as referring to a person's reputation or past criminal citations would create a dangerous precedent and unnecessarily stretch the authority and power of police officers to effect warrantless arrests based solely on knowledge of a person's previous criminal infractions, rendering nugatory the rigorous requisites laid out under Section 5[,] Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure].Verily, warrantless arrests conducted without this indispensable requisite should be struck down as unlawful, as in this case.
We agree with the respondent that the petitioner did not timely object to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment as required by the Rules. In addition, he actively participated in the trial of the case. As a result, the petitioner is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest.All told, since the shabu purportedly seized from Sindac constitutes inadmissible evidence in violation of Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, and given that the confiscated shabu is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court finds Sindac's conviction to be improper and therefore, acquits him.
However, this waiver to question an illegal arrest only affects the jurisdiction of the court over his person. It is well-settled that a waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.
Since the shabu was seized during an illegal arrest, its inadmissibility as evidence precludes conviction and justifies the acquittal of the petitioner.41 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 11-25.
2 Id. at 31-41. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring.
3 Id. at 43-44.
4 Id. at 71-77. Penned by Presiding Judge Arnelo C. Mesa.
5 Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
6 Records, pp. 2-3
7 The pertinent portions of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrarySection 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of x x x shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug x x x regardless of purity thereof:8 Records, p. 2.
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryx x x x
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of x x x methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" x x x.
9 See rollo, pp. 32-33.
10 Id. at 33-34.
11 Id. at 32.
12 Id. at 71-77.
13 Id. at 77.
14 See id. at 75-77.
15 See Notice of Appeal dated November 15, 2012; records, pp. 294-295. See also Brief for Accused-Appellant dated September 2, 2013; CA rollo, pp. 18-37.
16Rollo, pp. 31-41.
17 See id. at 36-37.
18 See id. at 37-40.
19 Id. at 40.
20 See motion for reconsideration dated June 30, 2015; id. at 45-50.
21 Id. at 43-44.
22 See People v. Comboy, G.R. No. 218399, March 2, 2016, citing Manansala v. People, G.R. No. 215424, December 9, 2015.
23 Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrarySection 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.24 Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrarySection 3. x x x.25cralawred See People v. Manago, G.R. No. 212340, August 17, 2016, citing Comerciante v. People, G.R. No. 205926, July 22, 2015, 763 SCRA 587, 594-595.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
26 See id.
27Comerciante v. People, supra note 25, at 596, citing Malacat v. CA, 347 Phil. 462, 479 (1997).
28 Id., citing People v. Villareal, 706 Phil. 511, 517-518 (2013).
29 Id. at 596-597.
30 TSN, January 13, 2010, pp. 5-10.
31 See records, p. 2.
32 See supra note 25, at 597-603.
33 See supra note 28, at 518-520.
34Pestilos v. Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014, 739 SCRA 337, 367.
35 See People v. Racho, 640 Phil. 669, 678 (2010); citations omitted.
36 Supra note 28.
37 Id. at 521.
38 Supra note 35.
39 See id. at 674-682.
40 See G.R. No. 182534, September 2, 2015.
41 See id.; citation omitted.