Case Digest (G.R. No. 186529)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Jack Racho y Raquero, G.R. No. 186529, August 03, 2010, promulgated May 9, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Appellant Jack Racho y Raquero was arrested on May 20, 2003 in Baler, Aurora after a confidential agent (civilian informant) had arranged by cellular phone on May 19–20 to buy shabu from him. The informant told police appellant would arrive by Genesis bus on May 20, would be wearing a red-and-white striped T‑shirt, and furnished appellant’s name and physical description; a police/PDEA/Army team posted themselves along the highway to apprehend him.
When appellant alighted from the bus and was waiting for a tricycle, the confidential agent identified him to the team. The officers approached and invited him to the police station on suspicion of carrying shabu. As he withdrew his hands from his pants pocket, a white envelope slipped out; it was opened and found to contain a small sachet later field‑ and laboratory‑tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The specimen was marked at the station.
Appellant was charged in two separate Informations under R.A. No. 9165: one for transporting/delivering (Section 5, Article II) and one for possession (Section 11, Article II). He pleaded not guilty. At trial he denied the charges, claimed he was visiting family, and described an allegedly irregular arrest (blocked tricycle, forced alight, taken to Sea Breeze Lodge, stripped, then brought to the station). On July 8, 2004 the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Baler, Aurora, convicted him of Violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165 (sentenced to life and fine) but acquitted him on Section 11. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a Decision dated May 22, 2008 (CA‑G.R. CR‑H.C. No. 00425). The case was brought to t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did appellant waive his right to question the legality of his warrantless arrest by failing to object before arraignment and by participating in trial?
- Was the warrantless search that produced the seized sachet lawful and therefore was the seized shabu admissible in evidence?
- If the seized sachet is inadmissible, can appellant’s conviction under Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 be ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)