Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
|
|
G.R. No. 175700 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
VELASCO, JR., |
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PEREZ, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
PEOPLE OF THE |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
July 5, 2010 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-x
D E C I S I O N
The threshold issue confronting us
is whether the facts presented in this case make out a legitimate instance of a
warrantless arrest, i.e. under circumstances sufficient to engender a
reasonable belief that some crime was being or about to be committed or had
just been committed.
This petition for review assails the
September 26, 2006 Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 29248 which affirmed with
modification the December 8, 2004 Decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 209, finding
petitioner guilty of violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act (RA)
No. 6425, as amended (otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
amended).
Factual
Antecedents
On
That
on or about the 27th day of July 2000, in the City of Mandaluyong,
Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, not having been lawfully authorized to possess or
otherwise use any regulated drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance
and one (1) piece of aluminum foil strip with trace of white crystalline
substance, which were found positive [for] Methamphetamine Hydrochloride,
commonly known as “shabu”, a regulated drug, without the corresponding
license and prescription, in violation of the above cited law.
Contrary
to law.[3]
When arraigned on
At about
On the basis thereof, petitioner was
correspondingly charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Clarito, on the other hand, was further
investigated by the City Prosecutor’s Office.
Petitioner denied the charge against
him. He claimed that he was merely
standing in front of a store waiting for the change of his P500.00 bill
when he was suddenly accosted by the MAC team.
Ruling of the
Regional Trial Court
The trial court found petitioner
guilty as charged and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six
months of arresto mayor as minimum to two years and four months of prision
correccional as maximum. The trial
court gave credence to the straightforward testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses and ruled that the elements of the offense charged were duly
established.
Ruling of the
Court of Appeals
On appeal, petitioner insisted that
his warrantless arrest was unlawful since he was not committing any crime when
he was arrested.
On
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated December 8,
2004 of the trial court is affirmed, subject to the modification of
accused-appellant’s imprisonment sentence which should be six (6) months of arresto
mayor maximum, as the minimum penalty, to two (2) years, four (4) months and
one (1) day of prision correccional medium, as the maximum penalty.
SO
ORDERED.[4]
Issue
Reconsideration having been denied,
petitioner is now before us raising a singular issue on:
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT FINDING THE PETITIONER GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.
Petitioner challenges the legality
of his warrantless arrest by asserting that at the time he was apprehended, he
was not committing or attempting to commit an offense. Petitioner argues that since his arrest was
illegal, the eventual search on his person was also unlawful. Thus, the illicit items confiscated from him
are inadmissible in evidence for being violative of his constitutional right
against unreasonable searches and seizure.
Our Ruling
We sustain the appellate court in
affirming petitioner’s conviction by the trial court.
Petitioner’s claim that his
warrantless arrest is illegal lacks merit. We note that nowhere in the records did we
find any objection interposed by petitioner to the irregularity of his arrest
prior to his arraignment. It has been
consistently ruled 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. 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.[5] In this case, petitioner was duly arraigned,
entered a negative plea and actively participated during the trial. Thus, 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 sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a
sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. It will not even negate the validity of the
conviction of the accused.[6]
A lawful arrest without a warrant
may be made by a peace officer or a private individual under any of the
following circumstances:[7]
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.
In
cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without
a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail
and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7, Rule 112.
Our own review
discloses sufficient evidence that the warrantless arrest of petitioner was
effected under Section 5(a), or the arrest of a suspect in flagrante
delicto. The MAC team witnessed
petitioner handing a piece of plastic sachet to Clarito. Arousing their suspicion that the sachet
contains shabu, team members PO3 Garcia and PO3 Sotomayor alighted from
their motorcycles and approached them. Clarito
was not able to completely get hold of the plastic sachet because of their
arrival. At the first opportunity, the
team members introduced themselves. Upon
inquiry by PO3 Garcia what petitioner was holding, the latter presented three
strips of aluminum foil which the former confiscated. At a distance, PO3 Sotomayor saw petitioner
in possession of the plastic sachet which contains white crystalline
substance. There and then, petitioner
and Clarito were apprehended and brought to the CID for investigation. After laboratory examination, the white
crystalline substance placed inside the plastic sachet was found positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug.
Under these circumstances, we
entertain no doubt that petitioner was arrested in flagrante delicto as
he was then committing a crime, violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, within
the view of the arresting team. Thus, his
case comes under the exception to the rule requiring a warrant before effecting
an arrest. Consequently, the results of
the attendant search and seizure were admissible in evidence to prove his guilt
of the offense charged. As correctly
pointed out by the appellate court in addressing the matter of the purportedly
invalid warrantless arrest:
In any event, the warrantless arrest of
accused-appellant was lawful because he was caught by the police officers in flagrante
delicto or while he was in the act of handing to Clarito Yanson a plastic
sachet of “shabu”. Upon seeing the
exchange, PO3 Sotomayor and PO3 Garcia approached accused-appellant and Clarito
Yanson and introduced themselves as members of the MAC. PO3 Sotomayor confiscated from accused-appellant
the plastic sachet of “shabu” while PO3 Garcia confiscated the aluminum foil
strips which accused-appellant was also holding in his other hand.
Jurisprudence is settled that the arresting
officer in a legitimate warrantless arrest has the authority to search on the
belongings of the offender and confiscate those that may be used to prove the
commission of the offense. x x x
Petitioner’s
version, on the other hand, cannot stand against the positive evidence of the
prosecution. It strains our credulity to
believe his version that at the time of his arrest, he was merely standing in
front of the store waiting for the change of his P500.00 bill and that the
small plastic sachet was in fact recovered from another male individual
standing in front of him. Petitioner is
thus suggesting that he was arrested for no cause at all. We are not swayed by his account. His version of the incident is simply
incredible. Moreover, he was positively,
categorically and consistently identified by the prosecution witnesses who were
shown to have no ill motive on their part in testifying against him. Consequently, their testimonies should
prevail over the alibi and denial of petitioner whose testimony is not
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.[8]
In fine, we defer
to the findings of the trial court which were affirmed by the appellate court,
there being no cogent reason to veer away from such findings. Well-settled is the rule that the factual
findings and conclusions of the trial court and the CA are entitled to great
weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any
clear showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts or circumstance
which would substantially affect the disposition of the case.[9]
The essential
elements in illegal possession of dangerous drugs are (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2)
such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and
consciously possess the said drug. All
these elements are obtaining and duly established in this case.
We now proceed
to determine the propriety of the penalty imposed upon petitioner.
Petitioner was
charged with and convicted for violation of Section 16, Article III of RA 6425,
as amended, for having possessed a sachet of shabu with a weight of 0.03
gram. Section 16 provides a penalty of
imprisonment ranging from six months and one day to four years and a fine
ranging from P600.00 to P4,000.00 on any person found in
possession or use of any regulated drug without the corresponding license or
prescription, irrespective of the volume or amount of the drug involved. However, said Section 16 was amended by RA
7659[10]
which took effect on
Section 16.
Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. – The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to
ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any regulated drug
without the corresponding license or prescription, subject to the provisions of
Section 20 hereof.
Section 20 of RA
6425 was likewise amended by Section 17 of RA 7659 where the imposable penalty
now depends on the quantity of the dangerous drugs involved. Thus, as amended by Section 17, the pertinent
provision of Section 20, Article IV of RA 6425 now reads:
Section 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Section 20.
Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds
or Instruments of the Crime. – The penalties for offenses under Sections 3,
4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act
shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the following
quantities:
x x x x
3. 200
grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride
x x x x
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than
the foregoing quantities, the penalty shall range from prision correcional
to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity.
Thus, in People
v. Tira,[11]
we classified the penalties and graduated the same by degree where the quantity
of the shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride involved is less than 200
grams, viz:
Under Section 16, Article III of RA 6425, as
amended, the imposable penalty of possession of a regulated drug, less than 200
grams, in this case, shabu, is prision correccional to reclusion
perpetua. Based on the quantity of
the regulated drug subject of the offense, the imposable penalty shall be as
follows:
|
QUANTITY |
IMPOSABLE PENALTY |
|
less than one (1) gram to 49-25 grams |
prision correccional |
|
49.26 grams to 98-50 grams |
prision mayor |
|
98.51 grams to 147.75 grams |
reclusion temporal |
|
147.76 grams to 199 grams |
reclusion perpetua |
Following the
above illustration and considering the shabu found in the possession of
the petitioner is only 0.03 gram, the imposable penalty for the crime is prision
correccional. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the appellate court correctly sentenced petitioner to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six months of arresto mayor as
minimum to two years, four months and one day of prision correccional
as maximum.
RA 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, increased the penalty for illegal
possession of less than five grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu
to an imprisonment of 12 years and one day to 20 years and a fine ranging
from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00.
Said law, however, not being favorable to the petitioner, cannot be
given retroactive application in this case.
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the September 26, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR No. 29248 affirming the conviction of petitioner Salvador V. Rebellion for
the unlawful possession of 0.03 gram of shabu and sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to two
years, four months and one day of prision correccional as maximum is affirmed.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO
C.
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
JOSE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified 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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] CA rollo, pp. 110-119; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal.
[2] Records, pp. 350-357; penned by Judge Adelaida R. Crisostomo-Reyes.
[3]
[4] CA rollo, p. 119.
[5] People
v. Alunday, G.R. No. 181546,
[6] People
v.
[7] Rules of Court, Rule 113, Section 5.
[8] People
v. Castel, G.R. No. 171164,
[9] Nepumuceno
v. People, G.R. No. 166246,
[10] An act To Impose The Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending For That Purpose The Revised Penal Laws, As Amended, Other Special Penal Laws And For Other Purposes.
[11] G.R. No. 139615,