Case Digest (G.R. No. 180661)
Facts:
On January 13, 2004, George Antiquera and Corazon Olivenza Cruz were charged with illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Criminal Case 04-0100-CFM before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City. The case arose from an incident that occurred on February 11, 2004, at approximately 4:45 a.m. Police officers, including PO1 Gregorio Recio and PO1 Laurence Cabutihan, were conducting a visibility patrol on David Street, Pasay City, when they observed two unidentified men hastily exiting house number 107-C and boarding a jeep. Suspecting criminal activity, the officers approached the house and peered through a partially opened door. They witnessed Antiquera and Cruz engaged in a drug session, with Antiquera holding an improvised tooter and a lighter, while Cruz had an aluminum foil and an improvised burner. The officers entered the house, identified themselves, and arrested both individuals. During a subsequent search, they discovered a wooden jewelry box containing vari...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 180661)
Facts:
1. Background of the Case:
- On January 13, 2004, George Codes Antiquera and Corazon Olivenza Cruz were charged with illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City. Cruz jumped bail and was tried in absentia.
2. Incident on February 11, 2004:
- At around 4:45 a.m., police officers (PO1 Gregorio Recio, PO1 Laurence Cabutihan, P/Insp. Eric Ibon, PO1 Rodelio Rania, and two civilian operatives) were conducting a patrol on David Street, Pasay City.
- They saw two unidentified men rush out of house number 107-C and board a jeep. Suspecting a crime, the officers approached the house and peeked through the partially open door.
- Inside, they saw Antiquera holding an improvised tooter and a pink lighter, while Cruz held an aluminum foil and an improvised burner. The officers entered, introduced themselves, and arrested the couple.
3. Search and Seizure:
- During the search, PO1 Cabutihan found a wooden jewelry box containing drug paraphernalia (improvised burner, wok, scissors, 10 small plastic sachets with traces of shabu, improvised scoop, and unused aluminum foil).
- The items were confiscated, and the suspects were brought to the police station for testing. The forensic chemical officer confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
4. Antiquera’s Version:
- Antiquera claimed that he and Cruz were asleep when police officers forcibly entered their house, handcuffed him, and searched the premises without a warrant. He denied any involvement in illegal activities.
5. Trial Court Decision:
- On July 30, 2004, the RTC found Antiquera and Cruz guilty, sentencing them to six months and one day to two years and four months imprisonment, plus a fine of P10,000 each. The court relied on the officers' testimony, finding no ill motive and rejecting Antiquera’s claims of illegal arrest.
6. Court of Appeals Decision:
- The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision on September 21, 2007. Antiquera’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Warrantless Arrest Requirements:
- A warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 requires that the arresting officer personally witness the suspect committing, attempting to commit, or having just committed a crime. In this case, the officers did not witness any overt criminal act before entering the house.
Exclusionary Rule:
- Evidence obtained from an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in court. The drug paraphernalia, being the corpus delicti of the crime, could not be used to convict Antiquera.
Waiver of Rights:
- A waiver of an illegal arrest does not extend to the waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence obtained from the illegal search. Antiquera’s plea of not guilty did not validate the illegal arrest or the inadmissible evidence.
Burden of Proof:
- The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution failed to meet this burden due to the inadmissibility of the key evidence.