l\epublic of tbe llbilippines
~upreme ~ourt
;fflanila
FIRST DIVISION
DANILO VILLANUEVA y G.R. No. 199042
ALCARAZ,
Petitioner, Present:
SERENO, CJ, Chairperson,
*VELASCO, JR.,
- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
PEREZ, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ
Promulgated:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. NOV 1 7 2014
:x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~- - - - -:x
DECISION
SERENO, CJ:
We resolve the Petition 1 filed by Danilo Villanueva y Alcaraz from
the Decision2 dated 4 May 2011 and Resolution3 dated 18 October 2011
issued by the Fourteenth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
C.R. No. 32582.
THE ANTECEDENT FACTS
Petitioner Danilo Villanueva was charged with violation of Section
11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Information 4 reads:
That on or about the l 51h day of June 2004 in Caloocan City, Metro
Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there,
Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin per S.O. No. 1870.
1
Rollo, pp. 9-33.
2
Id. at 35-52; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices
Stephen C. Cruz and Agnes Reyes Carpio.
3
Id. at 53-54.
4
Records, p. 2.
(
Decision 2 G.R. No.199042
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and
control METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing
0.63 gram knowing the same to [be a] dangerous drug under the
provisions of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On 15 July 2004, the accused, duly assisted by counsel de oficio,
pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.5
PROSECUTIONS VERSION
Four witnesses testified for the prosecution: (1) Police Senior
Inspector (PSI) Albert Arturo, (2) Police Officer (PO) 3 Jonathan Coralde,
(3) PO2 Reynante Mananghaya, and (4) Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1)
Antonio Asiones.6 Their testimonies reveal that a Complaint was filed by
Brian Resco against Danilo Villanueva for allegedly shooting the former
along C-3 Road, Navotas City. After recording the incident in the police
blotter, PO3 Jonathan Coralde, SPO3 Enrique de Jesus, SPO2 Henry Martin
and SPO1 Anthony Asiones, together with Resco, proceeded to the house of
Villanueva. They informed Villanueva about the Complaint lodged against
him. They invited him to the police station. There, he was subjected to a
body search and, in the process, a plastic sachet of shabu was recovered
from the left pocket of his pants. PO3 Coralde marked the sachet with the
initial DAV 06-15-04, and PO2 Reynante Mananghaya brought it to the
National Police District Scene of the Crime Operatives (NPD-SOCO) for
examination.7
DEFENSES VERSION
The accused testified that at the time of the incident, he was at home
watching TV when PO3 Coralde, along with three others, invited him to go
with them to the police station. Informed that he had been identified as
responsible for shooting Resco, the accused was then frisked and detained at
the police station.8
RULING OF THE RTC
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 127 of Caloocan City, in its
Decision9 dated 6 April 2009, convicted petitioner of the offense charged.
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
5
Id. at 32.
6
Rollo, p. 36.
7
Id. at 36-37.
8
Id. at 38.
9
Records, pp. 165-171; penned by Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos.
Decision 3 G.R. No.199042
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered declaring accused DANILO VILLANUEVA y ALCARAZ,
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the offense of
Violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165. Henceforth, this Court
hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of twelve (12) years and
one (1) day as the minimum to seventeen (17) years and eight (8) months
as the maximum and to pay the fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P300,000.00).
The drugs subject matter of this case is ordered confiscated and
forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with
the law.
SO ORDERED.10
The CA reviewed the appeal, which hinged on one issue, viz:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING
AS ILLEGAL THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
WARRANTLESS ARREST AND SEARCH.11
RULING OF THE CA
On 4 May 2011, the CA affirmed the ruling of the lower court:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated April 6, 2009 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, Caloocan City in Criminal Case No.
70854 finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt is
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.12
On 27 May 2011, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,13
which the CA denied in a Resolution14 dated 18 October 2011.
Hence, the instant Petition, which revolves around the following lone
issue:
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE PETITIONERS
10
Id. at 171.
11
Rollo, p. 39.
12
Id. at 51.
13
Id. at 100-104.
14
Id. at 53-54.
Decision 4 G.R. No.199042
CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 11 OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 DESPITE THE ILLEGALITY OF
THE ARREST AND THE LAPSES ON THE PART OF THE
POLICE OFFICERS IN THE HANDLING OF THE
CONFISCATED DRUG.15
Petitioner claims that his arrest does not fall within the purview of
valid warrantless arrests, since it took place on the day of the alleged
shooting incident. Hence, to invite him to the precinct without any warrant
of arrest was illegal. The evidence obtained is, consequently, inadmissible.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment16 stating that the
shabu confiscated from petitioner was admissible in evidence against him;
that the search conducted on him was valid; and that he cannot raise the
issue regarding the apprehending officers non-compliance with Section 21,
Article II of R.A. 9165 for the first time on appeal.
OUR RULING
We find the instant appeal meritorious.
Accused-appellant is estopped from
questioning the legality of his arrest.
Accused-appellant was arrested without a warrant. Section 5, Rule
113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, lays down the basic rules
on lawful warrantless arrests either by a peace officer or a private person, as
follows:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(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
(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.
15
Id. at 15.
16
Rollo, pp. 217-248.
Decision 5 G.R. No.199042
The circumstances that transpired between accused-appellant and the
arresting officer show none of the above that would make the warrantless
arrest lawful. Nevertheless, records reveal that accused-appellant never
objected to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. He pleaded
not guilty upon arraignment. He actively participated in the trial of the case.
Thus, he is considered as one who had properly and voluntarily submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court and waived his right to question
the validity of his arrest.17
The warrantless search conducted is
not among those allowed by law.
A waiver of an illegal arrest, however, is not a waiver of an illegal
search.18 Records have established that both the arrest and the search were
made without a warrant. While the accused has already waived his right to
contest the legality of his arrest, he is not deemed to have equally waived his
right to contest the legality of the search.
Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements on when a warrantless
search can be conducted. These searches include: (1) search of a moving
vehicle; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs search; (4) waiver or
consented search; (5) stop-and-frisk situation; (6) search incidental to a
lawful arrest and (7) exigent and emergency circumstance.19
The search made was not among the enumerated instances. Certainly,
it was not of a moving vehicle, a customs search, or a search incidental to a
lawful arrest. There could not have been a seizure in plain view as the seized
item was allegedly found inside the left pocket of accused-appellants pants.
Neither was it a stop-and-frisk situation. While this type may seemingly fall
under the consented search exception, we reiterate that [c]onsent to a search
is not to be lightly inferred, but shown by clear and convincing evidence.20
Consent must also be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise
illegal search; that is, the consent must be unequivocal, specific, intelligently
given, and uncontaminated by any duress or coercion.21 In this case,
petitioner was merely "ordered" to take out the contents of his pocket. The
testimony of the police officer on the matter is clear:
Q: And what did you do when you frisked a small plastic sachet?
A: When I felt something inside his pocket, I ordered him to bring out the
thing which I felt.
17
People vs. Rabang, G.R. No. 73403, 23 July 1990, 187 SCRA 682.
18
Valdez v. People, 563 Phil. 934 (2000).
19
People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, 3 August 2010, 626 SCRA 633.
20
Caballes v. CA, 424 Phil. 263 (2002).
21
Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788, 29 February 2012, 667 SCRA 421.
Decision 6 G.R. No.199042
Q: And what did Danilo Villanueva do when you instructed him to bring
out the contents of his pocket?
A: He took out the contents of his pocket and I saw the plastic containing
shabu. 22
The evidence obtained is not
admissible.
Having been obtained through an unlawful search, the seized item is
thus inadmissible in evidence against accused-appellant. Obviously, this is
an instance of seizure of the "fruit of the poisonous tree." Hence, the
confiscated item is inadmissible in evidence consonant with Article III,
Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution: "Any evidence obtained in violation
of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding." 23 Without the seized item, therefore, the conviction of accused-
appellant cannot be sustained. This being the case, we see no more reason to
discuss the alleged lapses of the officers in the handling of the confiscated
drug.
As a final word, we reiterate that "[ w]hile this Court appreciates and
encourages the efforts of law enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the
peace and security of society, we nevertheless admonish them to act with
deliberate care and within the parameters set by the Constitution and the law.
Truly, the end never justifies the means." 24
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated 4
May 2011 and Resolution dated 18 October 2011 issued by the Fourteenth
Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R. No. 32582 are SET
ASIDE. Petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice, Chairperson
22
TSN, 8 November 2004, p. 8.
23
People v. Racho, supra note 15.
24
People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, 22 February 2007, 516 SCRA 463, 484-485.
Decision 7 G.R. No.199042
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO /. VELASCO, JR.
Assocfate Justice
~~~&JM--
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
IAa. AuJ./
ESTELA lVC f ERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
