Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Petitioner Vs Vs Respondent: Third Division
Petitioner Vs Vs Respondent: Third Division
DECISION
PERALTA , J : p
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the
Decision 1 dated October 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No.
28846, which in turn af rmed in toto the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 120, Caloocan City, in Criminal Case No. C-66765 convicting petitioner of
Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. SaIHDA
Upon arraignment, petitioner, with the assistance of counsel pleaded not guilty to
the crime charged. Consequently, trial on the merits ensued.
To establish its case, the prosecution presented Police Inspector Jessie Abadilla
Dela Rosa (P/Insp. Dela Rosa), Forensic Chemical Of cer of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, NPD-CLO, Caloocan City Police Station and Police
Of cer 3 Rodrigo Antonio (PO3 Antonio) of the Caloocan Police Station — Drug
Enforcement Unit. The testimony of the police investigator, PO3 Fernando Moran (PO3
Moran), was dispensed with after petitioner's counsel admitted the facts offered for
stipulation by the prosecution.
On the other hand, the defense presented the petitioner as its sole witness. The
testimonies of Abraham Miclat, Sr. and Ma. Concepcion Miclat, the father and sister,
respectively, of the petitioner was dispensed with after the prosecution agreed that
their testimonies were corroborative in nature.
Evidence for the Prosecution
First to testify for the prosecution was P/Insp. Jessie Abadilla Dela Rosa, Forensic
Chemical Of cer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, NPD-CLO, Caloocan City Police
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Station who, on the witness stand, af rmed his own ndings in Physical Science
Report No. D-1222-02 (Exhs. "D," "D-1," and "D-2") that per qualitative examination
conducted on the specimen submitted, the white crystalline substance weighing
0.05 gram, 0.06 gram, 0.07 gram, and 0.06 gram then contained inside four (4)
separate pieces of small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets (Exhs. "D-4" to
"D-7") gave positive result to the test for Methylamphetamine (sic) Hydrochloride,
a dangerous drug.
Also, thru the testimony of PO3 Rodrigo Antonio of the Caloocan Police Station-
Drug Enforcement Unit, Samson Road, Caloocan City, the prosecution further
endeavored to establish the following:
At about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of November 8, 2002, P/Insp. Jose Valencia
of the Caloocan City Police Station-SDEU called upon his subordinates after the
(sic) receiving an INFOREP Memo from Camp Crame relative to the illicit and
down-right drug-trading activities being undertaken along Palmera Spring II,
Bagumbong, Caloocan City involving Abe Miclat, Wily alias "Bokbok" and one Mic
or Jojo (Exhs. "E," "E-1," and ( sic) "E-3," and "E-4"). Immediately, P/Insp. Valencia
formed a surveillance team headed by SPO4 Ernesto Palting and is composed of
ve (5) more operatives from the Drug Enforcement Unit, namely: PO3
Pagsolingan, PO2 Modina, PO2 De Ocampo, and herein witness PO3 Antonio.
After a short brie ng at their station, the team boarded a rented passenger
jeepney and proceeded to the target area to verify the said informant and/or
memorandum.
When the group of SPO4 Palting arrived at Palmera Spring II, Caloocan City at
around 3:50 o'clock that same afternoon, they were [at] once led by their
informant to the house of one Alias "Abe." PO3 Antonio then positioned himself at
the perimeter of the house, while the rest of the members of the group deployed
themselves nearby. Thru a small opening in the curtain-covered window, PO3
Antonio peeped inside and there at a distance of 1 1/2 meters, he saw "Abe"
arranging several pieces of small plastic sachets which he believed to be
containing shabu. Slowly, said operative inched his way in by gently pushing the
door as well as the plywood covering the same. Upon gaining entrance, PO3
Antonio forthwith introduced himself as a police of cer while "Abe," on the other
hand, after being informed of such authority, voluntarily handed over to the
former the four (4) pieces of small plastic sachets the latter was earlier sorting
out. PO3 Antonio immediately placed the suspect under arrest and brought him
and the four (4) pieces of plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance
to their headquarters and turned them over to PO3 Fernando Moran for proper
disposition. The suspect was identified as Abraham Miclat y Cerbo a.k.a "ABE," 19
years old, single, jobless and a resident of Maginhawa Village, Palmera Spring II,
Bagumbong, Caloocan City. 4 ADCSEa
On July 28, 2004, the RTC, after nding that the prosecution has established all
the elements of the offense charged, rendered a Decision 6 convicting petitioner of
Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, from the facts established, the Court nds the accused ABRAHAM
MICLAT Y CERBO "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
possession of a dangerous drugs (sic) de ned and penalized under the provision
of Section 11, sub-paragraph No. (3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and
hereby imposes upon him an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one
(1) day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment , in view of the absence of
aggravating circumstances. The Court likewise orders the accused to pay the
amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00) as fine.
Let the 0.24 gram of shabu subject matter of this case be con scated and
forfeited in favor of the Government and to be turned over to the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied.) 7
Aggrieved, petitioner sought recourse before the CA, which appeal was later
docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 28846.
On October 13, 2006, the CA rendered a Decision 8 affirming in toto the decision
of the RTC, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE , the foregoing considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED and
the assailed Decision AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against the accused-appellant.
In af rming the RTC, the CA ratiocinated that contrary to the contention of the
petitioner, the evidence presented by the prosecution were all admissible against him.
Moreover, it was established that he was informed of his constitutional rights at the
time of his arrest. Hence, the CA opined that the prosecution has proven beyond
reasonable doubt all of the elements necessary for the conviction of the petitioner for
the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Hence, the petition raising the following errors:
1. WHETHER OR NOT A POLICE SURVEILLANCE TEAM SENT TO DETERMINE
THE VERACITY OF A CAMP CRAME MEMORANDUM OF SHABU TRADING
ACTIVITY AT CALOOCAN CITY, WHICH CONVERTED THEIR MISSION
FROM SURVEILLANCE TO A RAIDING TEAM, CAN VALIDLY MAKE AN
ARREST AND SEARCH WITHOUT A VALID WARRANT HAVING BEEN FIRST
OBTAINED FROM A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION. DCSETa
3. WHETHER OR NOT THE BELIEF OF PO3 ANTONIO THAT THE FOUR (4)
PIECES OF PLASTIC SACHETS ALLEGEDLY BEING ARRANGED BY
PETITIONER CONTAINED SHABU JUSTIFIED HIS ENTRY INTO THE HOUSE
AND ARREST PETITIONER WITHOUT ANY WARRANT.
Simply stated, petitioner is assailing the legality of his arrest and the subsequent
seizure of the arresting of cer of the suspected sachets of dangerous drugs from him.
petitioner insists that he was just watching television with his father and sister when
police operatives suddenly barged into their home and arrested him for illegal
possession of shabu.
Petitioner also posits that being seen in the act of arranging several plastic
sachets inside their house by one of the arresting of cers who was peeping through a
window is not suf cient reason for the police authorities to enter his house without a
valid search warrant and/or warrant of arrest. Arguing that the act of arranging several
plastic sachets by and in itself is not a crime per se, petitioner maintains that the entry
of the police surveillance team into his house was illegal, and no amount of
incriminating evidence will take the place of a validly issued search warrant. Moreover,
peeping through a curtain-covered window cannot be contemplated as within the
meaning of the plain view doctrine, rendering the warrantless arrest unlawful.
Petitioner also contends that the chain of custody of the alleged illegal drugs
was highly questionable, considering that the plastic sachets were not marked at the
place of the arrest and no acknowledgment receipt was issued for the said evidence.
Finally, petitioner claims that the arresting of cer did not inform him of his
constitutional rights at any time during or after his arrest and even during his detention.
Hence, for this infraction, the arresting officer should be punished accordingly.
The petition is bereft of merit.
At the outset, it is apparent that petitioner raised no objection to the irregularity
of his arrest before his arraignment. Considering this and his active participation in the
trial of the case, jurisprudence dictates that petitioner is deemed to have submitted to
the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest. 1 1 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.
Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea;
otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. 1 2
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
In the present case, at the time of petitioner's arraignment, there was no
objection raised as to the irregularity of his arrest. Thereafter, he actively participated in
the proceedings before the trial court. In effect, he is deemed to have waived any
perceived defect in his arrest and effectively submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
court trying his case. At any rate, the illegal arrest of an accused is not suf cient cause
for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a suf cient complaint after a trial free
from error. It will not even negate the validity of the conviction of the accused. 1 3
True, the Bill of Rights under the present Constitution provides in part:
SEC. 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. CTcSAE
It is clear, therefore, that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly
exposed to sight. Since petitioner's arrest is among the exceptions to the rule requiring
a warrant before effecting an arrest and the evidence seized from the petitioner was
the result of a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, which incidentally was in
plain view of the arresting of cer, the results of the ensuing search and seizure were
admissible in evidence to prove petitioner's guilt of the offense charged.
As to petitioner's contention that the police failed to comply with the proper
procedure in the transfer of custody of the seized evidence thereby casting serious
doubt on its seizure, this too deserves scant consideration.
Section 21, paragraphs 1 and 2, Article II of RA No. 9165 provides:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Con scated, Seized, and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so con scated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the
following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and con scation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were con scated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public of cial who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon con scation/seizure of
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic
Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
xxx xxx xxx.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the
penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxx xxx xxx.
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
years and a ne 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 ve (5) grams of opium,
morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or
marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other
dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA,
TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly-introduced drugs
and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the
quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than
three hundred (300) grams of marijuana. 3 1
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period of the imposable
penalty shall not fall below the minimum period set by the law; the maximum period
shall not exceed the maximum period allowed under the law; hence, the imposable
penalty should be within the range of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14)
years and eight (8) months.
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appeal is DENIED . The Decision dated
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
October 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 28846 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION . Petitioner is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.
SO ORDERED .
Velasco, Jr., Abad, Mendoza and Sereno, * JJ., concur.
Footnotes
*Designated additional member, per Special Order No. 1028 dated June 21, 2011.
1.Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga, with Associate Justices Vicente Q.
Roxas and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 140-51.
2.Id. at 40.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 76-77.
5.Id. at 78.
6.Id. at 75-82.
7.Id. at 81-82.
8.Supra note 1.
9.Id. at 151.
10.Id. at 209-210.
11.Valdez v. People, G.R. No. 170180, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 611, 622.
12.Rebellion v. People, G.R. No. 175700, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 343, 348.
13.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 176735, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 578, 601.
14.Emphasis supplied.
15.People v. Tudtud, 458 Phil. 752, 775 (2003).
16.TSN, (PO3 Rodrigo Antonio), April 21, 2003, p. 5; rollo, p. 60.
28.People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 187070, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 556, 564.
29.People v. Willie Midenilla, et al., G.R. No. 186470, September 27, 2010.
30.People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 184804, June 18, 2009, 589 SCRA 625, 642.
31.Emphasis supplied.