SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 238141, July 01, 2019
WILLIAM CRUZ Y FERNANDEZ AND VIRGILIO FERNANDEZ Y TORRES, PETITIONERS, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 seeking to annul and set aside the Decision2 dated November 29, 2017 and the Resolution3 dated March 14, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR. No. 38062, which affirmed the Joint Decision4 dated September 29, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 69 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. L-10557 and L-10558 finding petitioners Virgilio Fernandez y Torres (Virgilio) and William Cruz y Fernandez (William; collectively, petitioners) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3 (c)5 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9287,6 otherwise known as the "Illegal Gambling Law."
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:Case law requires two (2) requisites for a valid in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest, namely, that: (a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Essentially, the arresting officer must have personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense, i.e., he must have personally witnessed the same.28
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense[.] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
[T]he Court finds it doubtful that the police officers were able to determine that a criminal activity was ongoing to allow them to validly effect an in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest and a search incidental to a warrantless arrest thereafter. x x x It appears that the police officers acted based solely on the information received from PD Peñaflor's informant and not on personal knowledge that a crime had just been committed, was actually being committed, or was about to be committed in their presence. x x x PO1 Saraspi even admitted that from his position outside the compound, he could not read the contents of the so-called "papelitos"; yet, upon seeing the calculator, phone, papers and money on the table, he readily concluded the same to be gambling [paraphernalia].In this case, the Court similarly finds that there could have been no lawful in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest made on petitioners. Based on the records, PO3 de Guzman himself admitted that he and PO2 Sabordo were about five (5) meters away from petitioners when they allegedly saw petitioners carrying papelitos, ball pens, and money. Perceiving that the same constitute gambling paraphernalia, the arresting officers immediately concluded that petitioners were engaged in illegal gambling activities, i.e., collecting jueteng bets, prompting them to swoop in with the intention of arresting petitioners. Pertinent portions of PO3 de Guzman's testimony reads:
On the part of PD Peñaflor, he likewise admitted that from his position outside the compound, he could not determine the activities of the persons inside. x x x.
x x x x
From the circumstances above, it is highly suspect that PD Peñaflor had witnessed any overt act indicating that the petitioners were actually committing a crime. While PD Peñaflor claims that he caught the petitioners in the act of collecting bets and counting bet money, this observation was highly improbable given the distance of the police from the petitioners and the fact that the compound was surrounded by a bamboo fence.30 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
[Prosecutor Jeffrey Catungal]: When conducting surveillance particular place [sic], did you proceed to conduct surveillance?Considering that the arresting officers were at a considerable distance of about five (5) meters away from the supposed criminal transaction, it would be highly implausible for them - even assuming that they have perfect vision — to ascertain with reasonable accuracy that the aforesaid items were being used as gambling paraphernalia. In an effort to legitimize the warrantless arrest and the consequent search made incidental thereto, the arresting officers insist that the arrest was made only after ascertaining that petitioners were not MVGC employees. However, the fact that petitioners were: (a) holding ball pens, papelitos, and money; and (b) not MVGC employees do not, by themselves, constitute an illegal gambling activity punishable under RA 9287. Notably, there was no other overt act that could be properly attributed to petitioners so as to rouse suspicion in the minds of the arresting officers that the former had just committed, were committing, or were about to commit a crime. Verily, these circumstances are not enough to justify a valid in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest on petitioners.
[PO3 de Guzman]: We conduct surveillance at Brgy. Poblacion particularly Mabini Street Binmaley, Pangasinan, sir.
Q: In going to the said place, what purposes of conducting surveillance [sic], was there anything that called your attention?
A: Yes, there were two (2) male factors, sir.
Q: What were you able to see or observe from them, if any?
A: They were collecting bets, sir.
Q: How sure are you that they were collecting bets?
A: They have [paraphernalia], sir.
Q: When you said they have [paraphernalia], what [paraphernalia]?
A: In collecting jueteng bets, sir.
Q: How far were you from them?
A: Almost 5 meters away, sir.
COURT:
Q: What those [paraphernalia! you are referring to?
A: [Ball pen], papelitos and money, sir.31 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
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.In fine, since the items seized by the police officers are inadmissible against petitioners - as they were obtained in violation of petitioners' right against unreasonable searches and seizures - and given that the alleged illegal gambling paraphernalia is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged,35 the Court is hereby constrained to acquit petitioners.
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.34 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 12-23.
2 Id. at 28-36. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.
3 Id. at 38-39.
4 Id. at 50-54. Penned by Presiding Judge Loreto S. Alog, Jr.
5 Section 3. Punishable Acts. - Any person who participates in any illegal numbers game shall suffer the following penalties:
x x x x
c) The penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years, if such person acts as a collector or agent[.] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
6 Entitled "AN ACT INCREASING THE PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL NUMBERS GAMES, AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1602, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on April 2, 2004.
7 Both dated July 13, 2015. Records (Crim. Case No. L-10557), p. 1; and records (Crim. Case No. L-10558), p. 1
8 Section 3. Punishable Acts. — Any person who participates in any illegal numbers game shall suffer the following penalties:
x x x x
d) The penalty of imprisonment from ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, if such person acts as a coordinator, controller or supervisor[.] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
9 Note that the Informations state that "Jai-Alai" was conducted (See records [Crim. Case No. L-10557], p. 1; and records [Crim. Case No. L-10558], p. 1), but narration in the decisions of the lower courts, including the Brief for the Appellee, indicates the documents confiscated as one used in "Jueteng" (see rollo, pp. 29, 34, 50, 51, and 59).
10 See rollo, pp. 30-31 and 51-52.
11 See id. at 30.
12 See id. at 31.
13 See id.
14 Id. at 50-54.
15 Id. at 54.
16 See id. at 53.
17 See id. at 54.
18 See Notice of Appeal dated September 29, 2015; records (Crim. Case No. L-10557), p. 59 and records (Crim. Case No. L-10558), p. 59.
19Rollo, pp. 28-36.
20 Id. at 34-35.
21 Dated January 10, 2018. CA rollo, pp. 94-98.
22Rollo, pp. 38-39.
23 See Sindac v. People, 794 Phil. 421, 427 (2016); and People v. Comboy, 782 Phil. 187, 196 (2016).
24 Section 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.
25 Section 3. x x x.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
26 See Trinidad v. People, G.R. No. 239957, February 18, 2019, citing Sindac v. People, supra note 23, at 428.
27 See Trinidad v. People, id.
28 See Sindac v. People, supra note 23, at 429-430.
29 G.R. No. 200396, March 22, 2017, 821 SCRA 328.
30 Id. at 343-346.
31 TSN, September 1, 2015, pp. 4-5.
32 See supra note 23, at 435.
33 Id.
34 Id. at 436, citing Homar v. People, 768 Phil. 195, 209 (2015).
35Villamor v. People, supra note 29, at 349.