Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CR. No. 37092

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Members:

SALAZAR-FERNANDO, R. A.,
- versus - Chairperson,
BALTAZAR-PADILLA, P. J., and
INTING, S. B., JJ.

ANDY QUICHO* y MILO and

LILIA DELOS REYES y Promulgated:
DIALINO,
Accused-Appellants**. December 14, 2015
X---------- -------------------------------------X

DECISION
SALAZAR-FERNANDO, J.:

Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated

February 5, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), First Judicial
Region, Branch 48, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan in Criminal Cases
Nos. U-15372 and U-15373 for Illegal Possession of Dangerous
Drugs, entitled “PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff versus
ANDY QUIOCHO y Milo, Accused./ PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
versus LILIA DELOS REYES y Dialino @ “Rhea”/ “Balakang”,
Accused.”, the dispositive portion of which reads:

*
See Records, Criminal Case No. U-15372, pp. 27-29; referred to as “Quiocho” in other
pleadings and Orders
**
This Court's Resolution dated December 3, 2015 (Rollo, p. 129) noted that accused-appellant
Lilia Delos Reyes is the sole appellant in this case. It appears, however, that Andy Quicho also
appealed from the February 5, 2014 Decision of the RTC (Records, Criminal Case No. U-
15372, pp. 318-319), which pertinent documents were not attached to the Rollo.
1
Rollo, pp. 93-103, penned by Judge Gonzalo P. Marata
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 2 -

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Andy

Quiocho in Crim. Case No. U-15372 of the crime of Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs is hereby sentenced to suffer
imprisonment from Twelve (12) years and one (1) day to Twenty
(20) years and to pay a fine of Php 300,000.00.

Accused Lilia delos Reyes in Criminal Case No. U-15372

(sic) of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs is
hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment from Twelve (12) years
and one (1) day to Twenty (20) years and to pay a fine of Php
300,000.00.

The illegal drugs subject matter of the above-entitled cases

are ordered forfeited in favor of the government to be turned over
to the PDEA for proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.”2

The facts are:

On December 28, 2007, the Assistant City Prosecutor of

Urdaneta City, Pangasinan filed separate Informations 3 for the crime
of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs against accused-appellants
Andy Quicho y Milo @ “Bruno” and Lilia Delos Reyes y Dialino @
“Rhea”/ “Balakang”, the accusatory portions of which read:

Criminal Case No. U-15372 against accused-appellant Quicho

“That on or about 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon of December

27, 2007 at Muslim Area, Doña Loleng Village, Brgy. Nancayasan,
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession,
control and custody two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu),
each weighing, (A3) – .20 gram & (A4)- .20 gram with a total
weight of 0.4 gram.
CONTRARY to Art. II, Sec. 11 of Republic Act 9165,
otherwise known as “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.”

2
Rollo, pp. 102-103
3
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15372, p. 2; Records, Criminal Case No. U-15373, p. 1
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 3 -

Criminal Case No. U-15373 against accused-appellant Delos Reyes

“That on or about 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon of December

27, 2007 at Muslim Area, Doña Loleng Village, Brgy. Nancayasan,
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession,
control and custody two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu),
each weighing, (A1) – 1.20 grams & (A2)- 0.50 gram with a total
weight of 1.70 grams and three open transparent plastic
sachets.

CONTRARY to Art. II, Sec. 11 of Republic Act 9165,

otherwise known as “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.”

On January 2, 2008, the accused-appellants through the Public

Attorney's Office (PAO) filed Motions for Preliminary Investigation. 4 In
the Joint Resolution5 dated February 7, 2008, the Assistant City
Prosecutor found that there was no cogent reason to reverse the
earlier finding of probable cause against the accused-appellants.

Upon her arraignment on August 21, 2008, accused-appellant

Delos Reyes, whose case at that time was pending before the RTC,
Branch 45, pleaded not guilty to the charge. 6 Later on, on June 23,
2009, accused-appellant Quicho, also assisted by Atty. Christopher
Castro, pleaded not guilty7 before the RTC, Branch 48.

Separate Pre-Trial Conferences were conducted on September

18, 20088 and August 25, 20099, wherein the parties stipulated on the
following matters: (1) the identity of accused-appellant Delos Reyes;
(2) the identity of accused-appellant Quicho; and, (3) that accused-
appellant Quicho was arrested on December 27, 2007 at the Muslim
Compound, Doña Loleng Village, Barangay Nancayasan, Urdaneta
City.

4
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15372, pp. 65-66; Records, Criminal Case No. U-15373, pp.
13-14
5
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15373, p. 2
6
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15373, p. 20
7
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15372, p. 89
8
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15373, p. 26
9
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15372, pp. 105-106
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 4 -

On even date, the prosecution filed a Motion for Consolidation 10

praying that accused-appellant Delos Reyes' case before the RTC,
Branch 45 be consolidated with that of accused-appellant Quicho's,
as the latter bears the lower docket number. On August 28, 2009, the
RTC, Branch 45 granted11 the Motion for Consolidation and forwarded
the records of Criminal Case No. U-15373 to the RTC, Branch 48.

Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.

During the trial, the prosecution presented SPO4 Renato

Cresencia, SPO4 Ernesto Pontaoe, retired P/Insp. Wilfredo Andaya,
P/S Insp. Amor Mio Somine, and P/C Insp. Saturnina Valenzuela as
its witnesses.

SPO4 Renato Cresencia (SPO4 Cresencia for brevity) testified 12

that: he was a member of the City Anti-Illegal Drugs Special
Operation Task Force (CAIDSOTF) of PNP Urdaneta; at around 1:30
o'clock in the afternoon of December 27, 2007, they were called by
their Intelligence Officer for an anti-illegal drug operation to be
conducted at the Muslim area in Doña Loleng Village, Barangay
Nancayasan, Urdaneta City; it was PSI Somine who received the text
message from an informant, which did not specifically mention any
name of the target/s; the police officers, however, were familiar with
the subject house which was being used for illegal drug activities;
SPO4 Cresencia had a meeting with PSI Somine, P/Insp. Andaya,
SPO4 Pontaoe, and SPO1 Ignacio Macanas; after the meeting, they
proceeded to the area using an unmarked police vehicle; they
stopped about sixty (60) meters away from the target house, and
proceeded by foot; it was an abandoned house with shattered
bamboo wallings; when they were about thirty (30) meters away from
the house, they saw three (3) men inside, who, upon noticing the
police, ran towards the north direction; this prompted the team to
move quickly and approach the house; when they reached the house,
they saw two (2) persons upstairs, herein accused-appellants, who
were facing each other and repacking shabu; upon seeing the
accused-appellants, the police officers immediately went upstairs;
PSI Somine approached accused-appellant Quicho, arrested him,
and seized two (2) sachets of shabu from him, while SPO4 Andaya
approached accused-appellant Delos Reyes and took her plastic
10
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15373, p. 53
11
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15373, p. 55
12
Transcript of Stenographic Notes of the testimony of the witness SPO4 Renato Cresencia
taken on June 21, 2010
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 5 -

container with unused sachets of shabu; the accused-appellants were

informed of their constitutional rights and were brought to the police
station; PSI Somine took with him the sachets he confiscated from
accused-appellant Quicho, while SPO4 Andaya took what he seized
from accused-appellant Delos Reyes; it was SPO4 Andaya who
placed the markings “WMA” on the seized items, which stands for
“Wilfredo Martinez Andaya”; these markings were made at the police
station and not at the place of arrest; aside from the plastic sachets,
scissors and lighters were also confiscated; SPO4 Cresencia
identified the Joint Affidavit of Arrest he executed; and, the police
officers did not conduct any casing or surveillance because they
immediately proceeded to the subject house after receiving the text
message.

SPO4 Ernesto Pontaoe (SPO4 Pontaoe for brevity) testified 13

that: he was a member of the Intelligence Unit of PNP Urdaneta City;
at around 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon of December 27, 2007, they
conducted a drug-bust operation in Doña Loleng Village with PSI
Somine, as their team leader, SPO4 Andaya, SPO4 Cresencia, and
SPO1 Macanas; there was no specific target, but they received an
information that there was a repacking of shabu in an abandoned
house in Doña Loleng Village; he was designated as back-up security
in the operation and was positioned at the back of the house; when
they arrived there, they saw a man and a woman inside the house
who were standing and talking to each other; the house was open
and the accused-appellants can be seen from the outside; the house
was elevated and had posts; there was a ladder which the arresting
officers used in going inside; and, it was PSI Somine and SPO4
Andaya who entered the house and arrested the accused-appellants,
with the latter marking the seized items.

Retired P/Insp. Wilfredo Andaya (Andaya for brevity) testified 14

that: in the year 2007, he was assigned at the Intelligence Drug
Enforcement Unit of PNP Urdaneta City; PSI Somine told them that
he received an information from a civilian asset through cellphone
that there were persons engaged in repacking shabu; the operation
was not a buy-bust operation and they did not coordinate with the
barangay officials; they proceeded to the Muslim area in Doña Loleng
Village on board an unmarked police vehicle; they did not know the
owner of the house; it is made of sawali and one can see the inner
13
Transcript of Stenographic Notes of the testimony of the witness SPO4 Ernesto Pontaoe taken
on September 27, 2010
14
Transcript of Stenographic Notes of the testimony of the witness Retired P/Insp. Wilfredo
Andaya taken on June 13, 2011
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 6 -

part of the house; accused-appellant Quicho was about to go out of

the house when PSI Somine arrested him; accused-appellant Delos
Reyes was alone inside the house; P/Insp. Andaya was able to
recover two (2) plastic sachets containing shabu, unused plastic
sachets, candles, and scissors from accused-appellant Delos Reyes;
he placed his initial markings on the plastic sachets, plastic tooter,
four (4) disposable lighters, three (3) candles, as well as on the
unused sachets; he also marked the items confiscated by PSI
Somine from accused-appellant Quicho; after bringing the accused-
appellants to the police station, they recorded their operation in the
police blotter; he submitted all the seized items to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for forensic examination; and, some of the items, such as
the four (4) subject plastic sachets, yielded a positive result while the
others produced a negative result.

PSI Amor Mio Somine (PSI Somine for brevity) testified 15 that:
on December 27, 2007, he was at the Urdaneta City Police Station
when he received a text message from one of his confidential assets,
informing him that there was an on-going drug transaction in Doña
Loleng Village, particularly at the Muslim area; he formed a team and
after a short briefing, they proceeded to the area; they used a black
Hummer vehicle and stopped at the corner of First Street; the house
was made of light materials such as wood and bamboo, and had lots
of holes; they noticed through its shattered door that there was a man
and a woman who were packing shabu; they were putting crystalline
granules in a transparent plastic sachet; the team immediately rushed
inside the house and arrested them; accused-appellant Quicho was
surprised of their arrival and immediately grabbed the plastic sachet,
while accused-appellant Delos Reyes picked up a pouch which
contained two (2) sachets of shabu; he confiscated the sachets from
accused-appellant Quicho and instructed SPO4 Andaya to place his
markings thereon; and, he was also present when SPO4 Andaya
placed his markings on the items recovered from accused-appellant
Delos Reyes.

PCI Saturnina Valenzuela (PCI Valezuela for brevity) testified 16

that: at 4:15 o'clock in the afternoon of December 27, 2007, he
received a Letter Request from the Chief of Police of PNP Urdaneta
City together with specimens delivered by SPO4 Andaya; at that time,
PCI Emelda Roderos was with her at the Crime Laboratory; after
15
Transcript of Stenographic Notes of the testimony of the witness PSI Amor Mio Somine taken
on August 17, 2011
16
Transcript of Stenographic Notes of the testimony of the witness PCI Saturnina Valenzuela
taken on February 22, 2012
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 7 -

receiving the items, she immediately turned them over to PCI

Roderos, the on-duty forensic chemist who conducted the
examination; and, after examination, the items were then turned over
to the evidence custodian.

The parties stipulated on the testimonies of PCI Emelda

Roderos17, SPO4 Rodolfo Febreo18 on the matter of the police blotter
entry, and NUP Merceditas Velasco19 - the PNP Crime Laboratory's
evidence custodian.

Thereafter, the prosecution filed its Formal Offer of Evidence. 20

For their part, the defense presented accused-appellants Lilia

Delos Reyes and Andy Quicho as witnesses.

Accused-appellant Lilia Delos Reyes testified 21 that: she had

been residing at Doña Loleng Village since 1990 where she worked
as a laundry woman; at around 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon of
December 27, 2007, she was cleaning her house, a small nipa hut in
Doña Loleng Village when three (3) men arrived, who suddenly held
her hands and handcuffed her; she did not know these persons and
they did not introduce themselves to her; after she was handcuffed,
they boarded her into their vehicle; they were holding something and
one of the men told her that she supposedly owned that; she told
them that she did not own those items they were holding; she was
incarcerated upon their arrival at the police station; there, she learned
for the first time why she was being arrested; afterwards, they went to
the Justice Hall where she was only asked what she was doing inside
the house; a relative told her that a case was going to be filed against
her; she did not know the prosecution witnesses and she never had a
misunderstanding with any of them before December 27, 2007; she
met accused-appellant Quicho for the first time at the police station;
and, she did not file a case against the police officers because she
did not know the process.
17
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15372, pp. 154-155; Records, Criminal Case No. U-15373, p.
35; Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated June 21, 2010, p. 3
18
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15372, p. 162; Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated
September 27, 2010, p. 10
19
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15372, pp. 270-271; Records, Criminal Case No. U-15373, pp.
91-92
20
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15372, pp. 272-274; Records, Criminal Case No. U-15373, pp.
93-95
21
Transcript of Stenographic Notes of the testimony of accused-appellant Lilia Delos Reyes
taken on April 11, 2012, May 8, 2013
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 8 -

Accused-appellant Andy Quicho testified22 that: he resided at P.

Ma. Sison St., Poblacion, Urdaneta City where he worked as a
vulcanizing technician; at the time of the incident, he was cleaning the
house of his aunt, Nelly Gonzales, in Doña Loleng Village; his aunt
Nelly called him there to cook for his nephew and nieces; three (3)
men who were carrying guns went inside his aunt's house and
pointed a gun at him; he did not know the names of these armed men
who were wearing civilian clothes; he never had any quarrel or
misunderstanding with the prosecution witnesses; he was alone in
the house when he was arrested; the armed men handcuffed him and
brought him to the police headquarters at the Urdaneta City Hall
using their owner-type vehicle; he was not able to make any protest
since he was startled and frightened; at the police station,he was
shocked when the police officers showed him certain items placed in
plastic sachets, telling him that he owns the same; he replied to them
that he did not own those items; after posting his bailbond, he was
arrested again for drugs at the carnival; he does not know accused-
appellant Delos Reyes; and, he saw her only once, at the time they
were arrested.

The defense rested its case without offering any documentary

evidence.23

On February 5, 2014, the lower court rendered the assailed

Decision24 convicting both accused-appellants of the crime of Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs. The lower court noted that the
prosecution witnesses were unanimous and consistent with each
other in claiming that they saw the accused-appellants repacking
shabu inside the house. Accused-appellants' possession of
dangerous drugs at the time of their arrest constitute a prima facie
evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, in the absence of a
satisfactory explanation of such possession. The lower court found
the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers to be
trivial. Further, accused-appellants' defense of denial cannot
overcome the presumption of regularity in the perfomance of official
functions accorded to the apprehending police officers.

22
Transcript of Stenographic Notes of the testimony of accused Andy Quicho taken on
September 27, 2013
23
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15372, p. 296
24
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15372, pp. 305-315; Records, Criminal Case No. U-15373, pp.
109-119; Rollo, pp. 93-103
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 9 -

Hence, this appeal raising the following errors 25:

I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
RULING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS'
WARRANTLESS ARREST AND EVENTUAL SEARCH
MADE AGAINST THEIR PERSONS WERE ILLEGAL.

II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
RULING THAT THERE WAS FAILURE TO PROVE THE
ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED.

III.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF VIOLATION
OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
9165 DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO
PRESERVE THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE
SUBJECT DANGEROUS DRUG.

The appeal is meritorious.

In seeking their acquittal, accused-appellants essentially argue

that: the testimonies of the apprehending police officers do not
deserve credence; there was no valid warrantless arrest, as accused-
appellants' act of cleaning a house hardly constitutes an overt act
indicative of a felonious enterprise; the police officers did not conduct
any surveillance and merely relied on a text message from an alleged
informant; since the warrantless arrests were illegal, the search made
upon their persons were likewise illegal; there is a dearth in the
prosecution's evidence that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items were preserved; the required procedure under Section
21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 was not complied with; the
prosecution did not present any reasonable explanation to justify non-
compliance with the same; and, at times, denial is the only plausible
defense available to an innocent person.

After a careful and thorough study of the records of the case, as

well as the laws and jurisprudence pertinent thereto, this Court finds
that the acquittal of accused-appellants is in order.
25
Rollo, pp. 68-69
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 10 -

Succinctly, the team organized by PSI Somine should have first

secured a search warrant before raiding the subject house. Worse,
the apprehending police officers glaringly failed to prepare a
Certificate of Inventory, much less had the same witnessed by the
accused-appellants or any one of the required representatives. The
team likewise failed to take the necessary photographs and
coordination with the PDEA. All these omissions were nonchalantly
made by the apprehending police officers without even the slightest
attempt to at least explain such manifest lapses in procedure, which
this Court cannot overlook and condone.

Of paramount consideration in the administration of justice is

the constitutional presumption of innocence which requires courts to
take a more than casual consideration of every circumstance or doubt
favoring the innocence of the accused. It is the bounden duty of the
courts to put the prosecution's evidence through rigorous and
stringent testing so that no innocent person is made to suffer the
unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. 26

Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution protects the right of

persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. The
inviolability of the house is one of the most fundamental of all the
individual rights declared and recognized in the political codes of
civilized nations. No one can enter into the home of another without
the consent of its owners or occupants. "A man's house is his castle,"
has become a maxim among the civilized peoples of the earth. Thus,
the poorest and most humble citizen may, no matter how frail or
humble his cottage is, bid defiance to all the powers of the State. The
wind, the storm and the sunshine alike may enter through its weather-
beaten parts, but the State may not enter even the humblest
tenement without its owner's consent.27

Since the apprehending police officers were not conducting a

buy-bust operation which does not require a warrant, they should
have applied for a search warrant before raiding the house owned by
a certain “Baby” and occupied by accused-appellants. To sanction
and validate the warrantless search made by the arresting officers
would create a dangerous precedent where it is no longer necessary
for police authorities to secure a search warrant from the courts, as
they could just suddenly barge inside a house out of nowhere on the
26
People v. Carlos Baccoy, G.R. No. 134002. September 12, 2002.
27
United States v. Lorenzo Arceo, G.R. No. 1491. March 5, 1904; See also Separate Opinion of
J. Puno in Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768. July 21, 2003.
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 11 -

basis of a mere tip of an informant.

While there is nothing wrong in conducting, for instance, a buy-

bust operation or a surveillance operation from tipped information,
barging or breaking inside a house on the basis of a tip is an entirely
different matter. On this point, the Supreme Court's pronouncement in
People v. Arnold Martinez28 pertinently holds, thus:

“Although this Court has ruled in several dangerous drugs

cases that tipped information is sufficient probable cause to effect a
warrantless search, such rulings cannot be applied in the case
at bench because said cases involve either a buy-bust
operation or drugs in transit, basically, circumstances other than
the sole tip of an informer as basis for the arrest. None of these
drug cases involve police officers entering a house without
warrant to effect arrest and seizure based solely on an
informer’s tip. The case of People v. Bolasa is informative on this
matter.

In People v. Bolasa, an anonymous caller tipped off the

police that a man and a woman were repacking prohibited
drugs at a certain house. The police immediately proceeded to
the house of the suspects. They walked towards the house
accompanied by their informer. When they reached the house,
they peeped inside through a small window and saw a man
and woman repacking marijuana. They then entered the house,
introduced themselves as police officers, confiscated the drug
paraphernalia, and arrested the suspects. This Court ruled:
The manner by which accused-appellants were
apprehended does not fall under any of the above-
enumerated categories. Perforce, their arrest is
illegal. First, the arresting officers had no personal
knowledge that at the time of their arrest, accused-
appellants had just committed, were committing, or
were about to commit a crime. Second, the arresting
officers had no personal knowledge that a crime was
committed nor did they have any reasonable ground
to believe that accused-appellants committed it. Third,
accused-appellants were not prisoners who have
escaped from a penal establishment.
Neither can it be said that the objects were
seized in plain view. First, there was no valid
intrusion. As already discussed, accused-appellants
were illegally arrested. Second, the evidence, i.e., the
tea bags later on found to contain marijuana, was not
inadvertently discovered. The police officers
intentionally peeped first through the window
28
G.R. No. 191366. December 13, 2010.
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 12 -

before they saw and ascertained the activities of

accused-appellants inside the room. In like
manner, the search cannot be categorized as a
search of a moving vehicle, a consented warrantless
search, a customs search, or a stop and frisk; it
cannot even fall under exigent and emergency
circumstances, for the evidence at hand is bereft of
any such showing.
On the contrary, it indicates that the
apprehending officers should have conducted first
a surveillance considering that the identities and
address of the suspected culprits were already
ascertained. After conducting the surveillance and
determining the existence of probable cause for
arresting accused-appellants, they should have
secured a search warrant prior to effecting a valid
arrest and seizure. The arrest being illegal ab initio,
the accompanying search was likewise illegal. Every
evidence thus obtained during the illegal search
cannot be used against accused-appellants; hence,
their acquittal must follow in faithful obeisance to the
fundamental law.
xxx xxx xxx

The evidence was not inadvertently discovered as the

police officers intentionally entered the house with no prior
surveillance or investigation before they discovered the
accused with the subject items. If the prior peeking of the
police officers in Bolasa was held to be insufficient to
constitute plain view, then more so should the warrantless
search in this case be struck down. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)

To justify the intrusion, it is not enough that the apprehending

police officers saw accused-appellants from outside the house,
rather, they should have seen them: (1) in the act of repacking shabu;
(2) inadvertently; and (3) from outside the house. Applying Martinez
and Bolasa, it cannot be said that the incident happened inadvertently
because the police officers were there precisely to raid the house
occupied by accused-appellants. In other words, the plain view
doctrine could not be properly invoked 29 because PSI Somine's team
was deliberately in the area with the objective of conducting a “drug-
bust operation” at that specific house.

29
See People v. Armando Compacion, G.R. No. 124442. July 20, 2001.
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 13 -

Furthermore, this Court is not convinced that the apprehending

police officers indeed saw the accused-appellants from outside the
house in the act of repacking shabu. Accused-appellant Delos Reyes
was at the second floor of the house, and the policemen had to open
the door and climb the stairs to see what she was doing. The alleged
criminal act was not clearly shown to have been committed within
their view before they barged inside the house. 30

Notably, P/Insp. Andaya, the police officer who climbed upstairs

and arrested accused-appellant Delos Reyes, testified in this wise:

“Q: You said you saw them. How did you see them inside the
house?
A: We went inside the house at that time.
Q: Whose house was that?
A: We do not know the owner of the house, sir. The house does
not exist anymore.
Q: No, I am asking whose house was that?
A: At that time, only a certain Bebe, the owner of the house.
Q: How did you see them inside the house?
A: We went inside the house, sir.
Q: You went inside the house?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Why did you go inside the house? Were they doing
something in violation of the law?
A: Based on the report, they were engaged in repacking and
when we entered at the house, we saw and recovered three
(3) candles, I could remember.”31 (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx

“COURT:
Q: You could visibly see the persons inside the house while
you were outside?
A: No your honor because at that time, Andy Quicho was
hurrying to go down from the hut.
xxx xxx xxx
“Q: When you were at the vicinity of the house you said that you
saw through the shattered bamboo wall, what were they
doing?
A: I could not visibly see but there were persons inside the
house.
Q: So, you did not see the persons who were inside the
house or what they were doing?
A: When we were still at the outside.
Q: And it was only through text message given to PI Somine
that you assumed that the persons inside were
repacking shabu?
30
See George Antiquera v. People, G.R. No. 180661. December 11, 2013.
31
Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated June 13, 2011, pp. 4-5
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 14 -

A: Yes, sir.”32 (Emphasis supplied)

As the arresting officer himself, the above-cited account of

P/Insp. Andaya as to how the raid actually transpired in the afternoon
of December 27, 2007 acquires much significance. This Court
entertains serious doubts as to whether the policemen indeed saw
accused-appellants in the act of repacking shabu from outside the
house. SPO4 Pontaoe testified that when they arrived, he saw the
accused-appellants standing and talking to each other 33, which,
needless to say, is not a crime. It is also highly unusual that accused-
appellants still continued the alleged repacking of shabu after the
apprehending police officers shouted at the top of their voice just
thirty (30) meters away34 from the house and were closing in.

From P/Insp. Andaya's statements, this Court is inclined to

believe that what the policemen merely saw was that there were
occupants inside their target house, and on that basis alone barged
inside and went upstairs without any warrant.

Moreover, it may be well to note that PSI Somine received the

text message as early as 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon of December
27, 2007. Hence, the police officers had ample time and opportunity
to apply for a search warrant. There was no showing of any urgency
or necessity for the warrantless search. Consequently, the search
and seizure are void ab initio for having been conducted without the
requisite judicial warrant. The seized items cannot be utilized to prove
accused-appellants' guilt without running afoul the constitutional
guarantee against illegal searches 35, in line with the exclusionary
clause under Section 3, paragraph 2, Article III of the 1987
Constitution. The evidence is deemed tainted for being the proverbial
fruit of a poisonous tree.36

Verily, quick solutions of crimes and apprehensions of

malefactors do not justify a callous disregard of the Bill of Rights. Law
enforcers are required to follow the law and to respect people's rights.
Otherwise, their efforts become counterproductive. 37

32
Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated June 13, 2011, p. 14
33
Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated September 27, 2010, p. 9
34
Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated August 17, 2011, p. 14
35
People v. Abe Valdez, G.R. No. 129296. September 25, 2000; People v. Arnold Martinez, G.R.
No. 191366. December 13, 2010.
36
People v. Arnold Martinez, G.R. No. 191366. December 13, 2010.
37
People v. Roel Encinada, G.R. No. 116720. October 2, 1997.
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 15 -

Parenthetically, the allegation that the house was abandoned

has not been established by the prosecution, and is effectively belied
by the fact that it had occupants. As earlier stated, the house is
owned by a certain “Baby.” The police officers admitted that they were
aware that the house has an owner, but they just did not know who
he/she is/was. Needless to say, this is not an acceptable reason for
resorting to shortcuts and conducting a raid without any warrant. In
addition, even assuming that the house had no lawful occupant,
Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court requires that the
search should have been made in the presence of two (2) witnesses
of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

At any rate, it should be borne in mind that the guarantee

against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to the “right of
personal security” of the individual, in this case, accused-appellants.
What is sought to be protected against the State's unlawful intrusion
are persons, not places.38

Going to another point, the prosecution failed to show the

arresting officers' compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No.
9165. Faithful compliance with the mandated legal procedures is of
paramount importance since the existence of the drug is the very
corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
and, thus, a condition sine qua non for conviction.39

Here, there was no surveillance40 nor coordination with the

barangay41, which is significant in this case considering that the
apprehending police officers were not armed with a search warrant.
Likewise, it was not established whether the seized items were
marked in the presence of accused-appellants, or within the view of
any representative from the media, Department of Justice (DOJ), or
any elected public official.42 The "chain of custody" rule requires that
the marking of the seized items – to truly ensure that they are the
same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered
in evidence – should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended
violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation43, neither of which was
done in this case.

38
People v. Abe Valdez, G.R. No. 129296. September 25, 2000.
39
People v. Arnold Martinez, G.R. No. 191366. December 13, 2010.
40
Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated September 27, 2010, p. 8
41
Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated June 13, 2011, p. 13
42
People v. Samin Zakaria, G.R. No. 181042. November 26, 2012.
43
People v. Jose Alex Secreto, G.R. No. 198115. February 22, 2013.
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 16 -

The apprehending police officers did not offer any explanation

why the marking was done only at the police station and not in the
place where they conducted their “drug-bust operation.” 44
Unsurprisingly, the markings “WMA” allegedly made by P/Insp.
Andaya on the seized items were not reflected in the Initial
Laboratory Report45 nor in the Chemistry Report. 46 In fact, even the
Informations47 filed in court against the accused-appellants did not
state the markings “WMA” purportedly written by P/Insp. Andaya.
These circumstances engender a recurring doubt as to the identity of
the seized items.

Further, the requirement for the presence of representatives

from the media and DOJ, or any elected public official at the time of
the seizure and inventory is necessary to insulate the apprehension
and seizure from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity. Without the
presence of these representatives during the seizure and marking of
the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, planting, or
contamination of evidence under Republic Act No. 6425 once again
reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the
seized items. The insulating presence of these witnesses would have
preserved an unbroken chain of custody. 48

In this case, not even one of these signatories witnessed and

signed the required Inventory of Seized Items, since the
apprehending police officers did not bother to prepare any Certificate
of Inventory at all. No such material document can be found in the
prosecution's Formal Offer of Evidence nor in the entire records of the
case. The relevance of this unexplained lapse is that without any
inventory being made by the arresting team, it became doubtful
whether any dangerous drug was indeed seized from the accused-
appellants.49

Another omission is that the apprehending police officers did

not take any photograph of the items upon their seizure. This
requirement for the taking of photographs was intended by the law as
another means to establish the identity of the seized shabu for
purposes of preserving the chain of custody. 50
44
Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated June 21, 2010, p. 13
45
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15372, p. 6; Records, Criminal Case No. U-15373, p. 5
46
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15373, p. 99
47
Records, Criminal Case No. U-15372, p. 2; Records, Criminal Case No. U-15373, p. 1
48
People v. Larry Mendoza, G.R. No. 192432. June 23, 2014; People v. Louie Catalan, G.R. No.
189330. November 28, 2012.
49
People v. Larry Mendoza, G.R. No. 192432. June 23, 2014.
50
People v. Samin Zakaria, G.R. No. 181042. November 26, 2012; People v. Larry Mendoza,
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 17 -

Thus, in the recent case of People v. Beverly Alagarme51, the

Supreme Court elucidated:

“A reading of the record indicates that the buy-bust team did

not observe the procedures laid down by Republic Act No. 9165
and its IRR. The marking of the seized drugs or other related items
immediately upon seizure from the accused is crucial in proving the
chain of custody because it is the starting point in the custodial link.
The marking upon seizure serves a two-fold function, the first being
to give to succeeding handlers of the specimens a reference, and
the second being to separate the marked evidence from the corpus
of all other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure from
the accused until their disposition at the end of criminal
proceedings, thereby obviating switching, "planting," or
contamination of evidence. This requirement of marking as laid
down by the law was not complied with. Firstly, PO1 Mendoza
simply stated that he did the marking of the confiscated items with
his initials inside the Toyota Revo. Although the appellant was also
inside the Toyota Revo at that time, he did not state if his
marking was done within the view of the appellant, or within
the view of any representative from the media, Department of
Justice or any elected public official. Secondly, both he and
MADAC Operative Castillo did not indicate if any media or DOJ
representative or elected public official had been present
during the buy-bust operation and when the drugs were
recovered from the appellant at the scene of the apprehension.
The law unequivocally required such presence. Thirdly, there was
also no showing of any inventory of the confiscated items
being undertaken or prepared. The lack of the inventory was
confirmed by the absence of any certificate of inventory being
formally offered as evidence by the Prosecution. Lastly, the
Prosecution did not produce any photographs taken of the
sachets of shabu immediately following their seizure.”
(Emphasis supplied)

Here, all the aforementioned defects are present. There is no

mention of any participation whatsoever of the representatives from
the media, DOJ, etc., or even the efforts made to reach them. While
minor oversights in procedure can be permitted in justifiable
circumstances, a blatant disregard of the requirements of the law,
such as in this case, should never be countenanced.

As held in People v. Sonny Sabdula52:

G.R. No. 192432. June 23, 2014.

51
G.R. No. 184789. February 23, 2015.
52
G.R. No. 184758. April 21, 2014.
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 18 -

“These exchanges further show that the apprehending team

never conducted an inventory nor did they photograph the
confiscated item in the presence of the appellant or his counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or an
elective official either at the place of seizure, or at the police station.
The Joint Affidavit of the police did not also mention any inventory
conducted of any photograph taken. Corollarily, there was no
certificate of inventory or inventory receipt and photographs of the
seized drugs attached to the records.

In People v. Gonzales, the police failed to conduct an

inventory and to photograph the seized plastic sachet. In
acquitting the accused based on reasonable doubt, we
explained that [t]he omission of the inventory and photographing
exposed another weakness of the evidence of guilt, considering
that the inventory and photographing — to be made in the
presence of the accused or his representative, or within the
presence of any representative from the media, Department of
Justice or any elected official, who must sign the inventory, or be
given a copy of the inventory — were really significant stages of
the procedures outlined by the law and its IRR.” (Emphasis
supplied)

The importance of the requirements of physical inventory and

photograph was also discussed in People v. Jose Alex Secreto53,
People v. Rosalinda Casabuena 54, People v. Felimon Pagaduan 55,
People v. Charve John Lagahit56, and People v. Antonio Ramos57,
among others.

Indisputably, the apprehending police officers were under

obligation to explain why the procedure was not followed. Neither did
they give any justifiable ground. Otherwise, the requisites under the
law would merely be fancy ornaments that may or may not be
disregarded by the arresting officers at their own convenience. 58 In
such scenario, the procedure set out in the law will be mere lip
service.59

53
G.R. No. 198115. February 27, 2013 citing People v. Joel Ancheta, G.R. No. 197371. June
13, 2012.
54
G.R. No. 186455. November 19, 2014.
55
G.R. No. 179029. August 9, 2010, citing People v. Morales, G.R. No. 172873, March 19,
2010; People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259, 266; Bondad,
Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 173804, December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 497.
56
G.R. No. 200877. November 12, 2014.
57
G.R. No. 180508. September 4, 2009.
58
People v. Joel Ancheta, et al. G.R. No. 197371. June 13, 2012.
59
People v. Roberto Martin, G.R. No. 193234. October 19, 2011.
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 19 -

In other words, for the saving mechanism under the last

paragraph of Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of Republic Act No.
9165 to apply, the prosecution must first recognize the lapses in the
prescribed procedure, and then explain these lapses. 60

Ultimately, the test is whether there was an unmindful or

indifferent disregard of the requirements under Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165, or whether the law enforcement agents extended
reasonable efforts to comply with the same. To excuse non-
observance, there should be “at least an attempt to comply” 61, or a
“genuine and sufficient effort”62 to follow the mandated procedure.

In this case, the prosecution tendered no explanation regarding

the above-mentioned lapses. It appears from the testimonies of the
apprehending police officers that they did not have the genuine
intention to comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as if
this was optional.

P/Insp. Andaya testified:

“Q: Was there a Certificate of Inventory prepared by any of the

raiding team?
A: I did not make any inventory, only the transmittal to the Crime
Laboratory.
Q: How about the other members of the raiding team, do you
personally know if someone in your team has prepared an
inventory regarding the same?
A: None, sir.”63

PSI Somine, on the other hand, testified:

“Q: Were there pictures taken on the said abandoned house or

at the police station?
A: We did not take any picture sir.
Q: And on that dated (sic) also Mr. witness and on the following
date there was no certificate of inventory prepared by you or
by your companion regarding that operation?
A: No sir.”64

60
People v. Beverly Alagarme, G.R. No. 184789. February 23, 2015.
61
People v. Freddy Salonga, G.R. No. 194948. September 2, 2013.
62
People v. Sammy Umipang, G.R. No. 190321. April 25, 2012.
63
Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated June 13, 2011, p. 14
64
Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated August 17, 2011, p. 15
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 20 -

Indeed, to impose benediction on such shoddy police work,

absent exempting circumstances, would only spawn further abuses. 65
Law enforcers should be reminded to be ever mindful of the
procedures required in the seizure, handling, and safekeeping of
confiscated drugs.66

The well-entrenched dictum in criminal law is that the evidence

of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. 67
Accused-appellants' defense of denial is indeed weak, but the
prosecution's case is even weaker. All told, this Court is constrained
to acquit the accused-appellants in view of these glaring lapses in the
chain of custody of the seized items, which evidence are also
deemed inadmissible due to the invalid search and seizure.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated

February 5, 2014 of the RTC, Branch 48, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan
in Criminal Cases Nos. U-15372 and U-15373 for Illegal Possession
of Dangerous Drugs is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellants Andy Quicho y Milo and Lilia Delos Reyes y
Dialino are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women is

ordered to cause the IMMEDIATE RELEASE of accused-appellant
Lilia Delos Reyes68 from confinement, unless she is being held for
some other lawful cause, and to REPORT to this Court compliance
herewith within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.

The illegal drugs and other paraphernalia presented in the

lower court are ordered forfeited in favor of the government and
turned over to PDEA.

65
People v. Arnel Navarrete, G.R. No. 185211. June 6, 2011.
66
People v. Sonny Sabdula, G.R. No. 184758. April 21, 2014.
67
People v. Rogelia Jardinel Pepino-Consulta, G.R. No. 191071. August 28, 2013.
68
As per CAMIS Verification, it appears that accused-appellant Andy Quicho has another case
pending before this Court docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07405, which is an appeal from
Criminal Case No. U-17714 for Violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.
CA-G.R. CR. NO. 37092
DECISION Page - 21 -

SO ORDERED.

(signed)
REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR-FERNANDO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

WE CONCUR:

(signed)
PRISCILLA J. BALTAZAR-PADILLA
Associate Justice

(signed)
SOCORRO B. INTING
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

(signed)
REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR-FERNANDO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

bcs**