FACTS: On December 25, 2006 at around 11:30am as PO3 Renato de Leon (PO3 de Leon) was driving his motorcycle on his way home along 5th Avenue, he saw appellant from a distance of about 8 to 10 meters, holding and scrutinizing in his hand a plastic sachet of shabu. Thus, PO3 de Leon, alighted from his motorcycle and approached the appellant whom he recognized as someone he had previously arrested for illegal drug possession.
Upon seeing PO3 de Leon, appellant tried to escape but was quickly apprehended with the help of a tricycle driver. Thereafter, PO3 de Leon brought appellant to the 9th Avenue Police Station where PO3 de Leon marked the seized plastic sachet with his initials.
Subsequently, PO3 de Leon turned over the marked evidence as well as the person of appellant to the investigator, PO2 Randulfo Hipolito for examination. Upon qualitative examination, the plastic sachet, which contained 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Consequently, appellant was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
In his defense, appellant denied PO3 de Leon’s allegations and instead claimed that on the date and time of the incident, he was walking alone along Avenida, Rizal headed towards 5th Avenue when someone who was riding a motorcycle called him from behind. Appellant approached the person, who turned out to be PO3 de Leon, who then told him not to run, frisked him, and took his wallet which contained ₱1,000.00. Appellant was brought to the 9th Avenue police station where he was detained and mauled by eight other detainees under the orders of PO3 de Leon. Subsequently, he was brought to the Sangandaan Headquarters where two other police officers, whose names he recalled were "Michelle" and "Hipolito," took him to the headquarters’ firing range. There, "Michelle" and "Hipolito" forced him to answer questions about a stolen cellphone, firing a gun right beside his ear each time he failed to answer and eventually mauling him when he continued to deny knowledge about the cellphone. Thus, appellant sustained head injuries for which he was brought to the Diosdado Macapagal Hospital for proper treatment. The following day he was charged for illegal possession of drugs.
The RTC convicted appellant for the crime charged. The CA sustained appellant’s conviction
ISSUE: W/N appellant was lawfully arrested without warrant
RULING: No. The Court finds it inconceivable how PO3 de Leon, even with his presumably perfect vision, would be able to identify with reasonable accuracy, from a distance of about 8 to 10 meters and while simultaneously driving a motorcycle, a negligible and minuscule amount of powdery substance (0.03 gram) inside the plastic sachet allegedly held by appellant. That he had previously effected numerous arrests, all involving shabu, is
40 | P a g e
insufficient to create a conclusion that what he purportedly saw in appellant’s hands was indeed shabu.
42. PEOPLE vs. SALVADOR G.R. No. 19062; February 10, 2014
FACTS: A report was filed by a confidential informant before the Quezon City Police about a supposed drug transaction by one named Glenn Salvador. Because of this information, the QC Police, led by PO2 Soriano, set-up a buy- bust operation. PO2 Soriano posed as a buyer of shabu. Salvador then sold him P200.00 worth of shabu. When the exchange of the buy-bust money and heated-plastic sachet of shabu took place, PO2 Soriano immediately arrested Salvador. The accused was found guilty by the lower courts and filed the present appeal on the ground that the marking of the seized sachets of shabu was not made in his presence at the scene of the crime, hence, his arrest was illegal.
ISSUE: Is the failure of the police officers to conduct a physical inventory and photograph of the illegal items seized a ground to make the arrest illegal? RULING: No. In a buy-bust operation, the failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from the accused will not render his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the said items have been preserved. It is clear from the earlier cited Sec. 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 that in a buy-bust situation, the marking of the dangerous drug may be done in the presence of the violator in the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending team. Appellant should not confuse buy-bust situation from search and seizure conducted by virtue of a court-issued warrant. It is in the latter case that physical inventory (which includes the marking) is made at the place where the search warrant is served. Nonetheless, "noncompliance with [the] requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items."
43. PEOPLE vs. VELASCO G.R. No. 190318, November 27, 2013
FACTS: Appellant was charged of 3 counts of Rape and acts of lasciviousness. Appellant is the live-in partner of [AAA], the mother of private complainant [Lisa]. [Lisa] stayed with them in their house in x x x, Malolos, Bulacan since she was fourteen (14) years old.
On December 27, 2001, at around 11:00 o’clock in the morning, [Lisa] was at the sala watching television. Momentarily, appellant approached her and thereafter, removed his shorts and underwear as well as that of [Lisa’s]. He then mounted [Lisa] and inserted his penis into her vagina. He warned her not to report the incident to anybody, otherwise, he will kill both [Lisa] and her mother. After satisfying his lust, appellant left without saying a word. At the time of the incident, [Lisa] and [appellant] were alone in the house as [Lisa’s] brother and mother were out for work.
The following day, or on December 28, 2001, appellant again approached [Lisa] and removed both their shorts and underwear. He went on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. She was again threatened not to tell anyone of the incident. The incident took place outside the family’s bedroom at around 11:00 o’clock in the morning while [Lisa’s] mother and brother were not in the house.
The next day, or on December 29, 2001, also at around 11:00 o’clock in the morning, [Lisa] was raped for the third consecutive time by appellant while they were alone in the house. [Lisa] testified that white fluid came out of appellant’s penis. Like in previous incidents, she was threatened not to tell anyone of the incident.
A year thereafter, or on December 21, 2002, at midnight, when the other members of the family were asleep, appellant attempted to insert his penis into [Lisa’s] vagina while the latter was sleeping on her folding bed. This time, [Lisa] cried. Although appellant succeeded in touching and kissing [Lisa’s] private parts, he did not push through with his intention of raping her for fear
41 | P a g e
of getting caught by the other family members who were sleeping just a few feet away from them. The medico legal report submitted by public physician Richard Ivan Viray states that [Lisa] is in a non-virgin state; that she had shallow healed hymenal lacerations at 2 and 3 o’clock positions and deep healed lacerations at 6 and 7 o’clock positions.
RTC: Guilty of 3 counts of Rape and acts of lasciviousness. CA: Affirmed.
ISSUE: Whether the court a quo gravely erred in not finding the warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant as illegal.
RULING: No. With regard to purported irregularities that attended appellant’s warrantless arrest, we are of the same persuasion as the Court of Appeals which ruled that such a plea comes too late in the day to be worthy of consideration.
Jurisprudence tells us that an accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment, thus, any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
Nevertheless, even if appellant’s warrantless arrest were proven to be indeed invalid, such a scenario would still not provide salvation to appellant’s cause because jurisprudence also instructs us that the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error.
44. PEOPLE vs. COLLADO
FACTS: Appellants Marcelino Collado (Marcelino) and Myra Collado (Myra) were charged with the crimes of sale of dangerous drugs and maintenance of a den.
Relying on the information given by an asset, a buy-bust operation team was for formed and proceeded to Marcelino’s and Myra’s residence on board two private vehicles. Upon reaching the target area, the asset introduced PO2 Noble to Marcelino as a regular buyer of shabu. PO2 Noble was handed with a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance after paying P200. and gave the same to PO2 Noble. While PO2 Noble was inspecting its contents, he noticed smoke coming from a table inside the house of the couple around which were seven persons.
When PO2 Noble gave the pre-arranged signal, the backup team rushed to the scene and arrest herein appellants and the seven others. The witnesses of the defenses denies all the charges against the appellants. Marcelino surmised that their arrest was due to a misunderstanding he had with a former police officer named Rey who bought a VCD player from his shop. The trial court convicted appellants and was affirmed by CA. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: WON THE ARREST WAS LEGAL
RULING: Appellants argue that the arrest, search, and seizure conducted by the police were illegal since it was not supported by a valid warrant. They thus posit that their right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated.
Section 5(a) is what is known as arrest in flagrante delicto. For this type of warrantless arrest to be valid, two requisites must concur: "(1) 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, (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer." A common example of an arrest in flagrante delicto is one made after conducting a buy-bust operation.
This is precisely what happened in the present case. The arrest of the appellants was an arrest in flagrante delicto made in pursuance of Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The arrest was effected after Marcelino and Myra performed the overt act of selling to PO2 Noble the sachet of shabu and Ranada of having in his control and custody illegal drug paraphernalia. Thus,
42 | P a g e
there is no other logical conclusion than that the arrest made by the police officers was a valid warrantless arrest since the same was made while the appellants were actually committing the said crimes.
Moreover, assuming that irregularities indeed attended the arrest of appellants, they can no longer question the validity thereof as there is no showing that they objected to the same before their arraignment. Neither did they take steps to quash the Informations on such ground.They only raised this issue upon their appeal to the appellate court. By this omission, any objections on the legality of their arrest are deemed to have been waived by them.
Anent their claim of unreasonable search and seizure, it is true that under the Constitution, "a search and consequent seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding."31 This proscription, however, admits of exceptions, one of which is a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest.
The arrest of the appellants was lawful. Under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, "[a] person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant." The factual milieu of this case clearly shows that the search was made after appellants were lawfully arrested. Pursuant to the above-mentioned rule, the subsequent search and seizure made by the police officers were likewise valid. Hence, appellants’ claim of unreasonable search and seizure must fail.
BAIL
45. ESTHER P. MAGLEO vs. PRESIDING JUDGE ROWENA DE JUAN-QUINAGORAN and BRANCH CLERK OF COURT ATTY. ADONIS LAURE, BOTH OF BRANCH 166, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY