Title
People vs. Villareal y Lualhati
Case
G.R. No. 201363
Decision Date
Mar 18, 2013
PO3 de Leon arrested appellant for alleged shabu possession; Supreme Court ruled warrantless arrest unlawful, acquitting appellant due to inadmissible evidence.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 201363)

Facts:

  • Arrest and Seizure
    • On December 25, 2006 at around 11:30 AM along 5th Avenue, Caloocan City, PO3 Renato de Leon, while driving his motorcycle, observed appellant Nazareno Villareal y Lualhati holding and examining a small plastic sachet allegedly containing “shabu.”
    • PO3 de Leon recognized appellant from prior arrests, alighted from his motorcycle, and approached him. Appellant attempted to flee but was apprehended with the help of a tricycle driver. The police officer seized the sachet, handcuffed appellant, brought him to the 9th Avenue Police Station, and marked the evidence “RZL/NV 12-25-06.”
  • Custody and Laboratory Examination
    • Investigator PO2 Randulfo Hipolito took custody of the marked sachet, executed an acknowledgment receipt, and prepared a request letter for laboratory analysis.
    • The evidence and request were delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory, received by PSI Albert Arturo, and tested positive for 0.03 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
  • Trial Proceedings and Defense
    • Appellant was charged under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. He pleaded not guilty.
    • In his defense, appellant denied possession, claimed mistaken identity, alleged robbery of P1,000 by PO3 de Leon, physical mauling, and coercion into a false inquest confession.
  • Lower Court Decisions
    • RTC Decision (Dec. 11, 2007): Convicted appellant, applying the plain view doctrine, finding credible testimony and an unbroken chain of custody; sentenced to 12 years and one day to 14 years and eight months’ imprisonment and a ₱300,000 fine.
    • CA Decision (May 25, 2011): Affirmed conviction, held arrest lawful in flagrante delicto under Rule 113, Section 5, citing suspicious conduct, past criminal record, flight, and intact chain of custody.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction based on a purportedly lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

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.