G.R. No. 210731 - Lapi y Mahipus vs. People

On April 20, 2006, an Information was filed against Simeon M. Lapi y Mahipus (petitioner), Allen Sacare, and Kenneth Lim for violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Use of Dangerous Drugs), alleging they conspired to ingest “shabu” during a “pot session” in Bacolod City.
At arraignment, all three pleaded not guilty. At pre-trial, Sacare and Lim pleaded guilty and underwent six months’ rehabilitation; only petitioner proceeded to trial on the merits.

On April 17, 2006, PO2 Ronald Villeran and team conducted a stake-out in Purok Sigay, Barangay 2, Bacolod City. Hearing noises, Villeran peeped through a window, observed the three men inhaling fumes from aluminum foil, forced entry through the kitchen door, identified himself as a police officer, and effected their arrest.
The arrested men and their paraphernalia were brought to the Anti-Illegal Drug Task Group office, then to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Confirmatory tests (Chemistry Reports DT-042-2006, DT-043-2006, DT-045-2006) showed petitioner and his two co-accused positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride; two other companions tested negative.

Petitioner testified he was delivering a mahjong set when strangers accosted, robbed, handcuffed, and transported him to police headquarters, where he underwent a drug test without knowing the result, then was detained. A civilian witness corroborated parts of this claim.
On September 15, 2010, RTC Branch 47, Bacolod City, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal drug use, ruling the warrantless arrest valid as in flagrante delicto, and sentenced him to six months’ rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated April 29, 2013 (Special 20th Division), affirmed the RTC, holding PO2 Villeran had reasonable ground to believe petitioner was under the influence and was duty-bound to subject him to laboratory examination. A Motion for Reconsideration was denied on December 10, 2013.
Petitioner filed a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing (a) the warrantless arrest was illegal due to privacy intrusion and lack of in flagrante ground; and (b) the Court of Appeals’ factual findings were “glaringly erroneous.” Respondent contended the petition improperly raised factual issues and that the arrest and ensuing procedures were valid.

Whether the Petition for Review on Certiorari should be dismissed for raising questions of fact beyond the scope of Rule 45.

Whether the warrantless arrest of petitioner was valid, and if not, whether he waived the right to question its legality.