Title
People vs. Nixon Cabanilla, et al.
Case
G.R. No. 256233
Decision Date
Aug 9, 2023
Accused appealed their conviction for drug possession. The Supreme Court found unlawful arrests and reversed the lower court’s rulings, acquitting the accused.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 101251)

Facts:

  • Charges and Arrest
    • Nixon Cabanilla, Michael Cabardo, and Gomer Valmeo (the accused) were charged under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165) for possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia on January 29, 2017, in San Juan City.
    • The accused allegedly possessed heat-sealed plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and drug paraphernalia during a pot session inside a parked jeepney.
    • Police Officers Rennel EspaAo (PO3 Rennel), Ryan Fuentes (PO2 Ryan), and Inspector John Jefferson delos Reyes were patrolling when they saw Nixon half-naked inside the jeepney, a violation of a local ordinance prohibiting toplessness in public.
    • The police approached, questioned the accused, and upon PO3 Rennel boarding the jeepney, discovered drug paraphernalia on the floor; the accused were arrested in flagrante delicto.
  • Handling of Evidence
    • The seized items were inventoried and photographed at the police precinct in the presence of the accused, a barangay kagawad, and a DOJ representative.
    • The chain of custody forms showed one sachet was already opened upon seizure.
    • The items were submitted to the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
  • Trial Court and Appeals
    • The RTC convicted the accused, finding their arrest valid under an in flagrante delicto theory due to violation of the ordinance and possession of drugs.
    • The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, upholding the officers' credibility, legality of arrest, and chain of custody.
  • Defense and Issues Raised
    • The accused denied being half-naked and claimed they were resting; the arrest was based on doubtful testimonies and improper chain of custody.
    • They appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting the validity of the warrantless arrest, search, and adherence to the chain of custody rule.

Issues:

  • Whether the accused were validly arrested in flagrante delicto and whether the warrantless search was lawful and the seized evidence admissible under the chain of custody rule.
  • Whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 13 of RA 9165.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.