Case Digest (G.R. No. 204589)
Facts:
Petitioner Rizaldy Sanchez y Cajili was charged by Information dated March 20, 2003 with possession of 0.1017 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride under R.A. No. 9165 after police operatives accosted him in Barangay Alapan 1-B, Imus, Cavite, allegedly found a sachet inside a matchbox, and submitted the specimen to the NBI. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Imus convicted him on April 21, 2005; the Court of Appeals affirmed on July 25, 2012 and denied reconsideration on November 20, 2012, prompting this Rule 65 petition treated as a petition for review on certiorari.Issues:
- Was the warrantless search and seizure lawful as an *in flagrante delicto* arrest or under the stop-and-frisk doctrine?
- Did non‑compliance with Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and defects in handling the seized item render the evidence inadmissible?
Ruling:
The Court granted the petition, treated it as a petition for review under Rule 45, reversed the CA decision, and acquitted Case Digest (G.R. No. 204589)
Facts:
- Background and charges
- Rizaldy Sanchez y Cajili was charged by Information dated March 20, 2003 with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for alleged possession of 0.1017 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) on or about March 19, 2003 in Imus, Cavite.
- The Information alleged that the accused was not authorized by law and willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had in his possession, control and custody the subject substance.
- Stipulated and documentary evidence
- At pre-trial, the parties stipulated to the existence and due execution of: (a) the request for laboratory examination; (b) a Certification issued by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI); (c) a Dangerous Drugs Report; and (d) a transparent plastic sachet containing a small transparent sachet of white crystalline substance.
- Forensic Chemist Salud M. Rosales of the NBI issued a Certification dated March 20, 2003 stating that the submitted white crystalline substance marked RSC, net wt. 0.1017 gm, gave positive results for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride and was allegedly confiscated from Rizaldy Sanchez y Cajili and Darwin Reyes y Villarente.
- Prosecution narrative at trial
- The prosecution, summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General, asserted that on March 19, 2003 police operatives acting on information that Jacinta Marciano was selling drugs to tricycle drivers awaited a tricycle at Barangay Alapan 1-B, Imus, Cavite, pursued a tricycle carrying petitioner, asked him to alight, observed him holding a match box, requested to see its contents, and found a small transparent sachet with white crystalline substance.
- The operatives then accosted petitioner and the tricycle driver and brought them to the police station.
- Defense version and testimony
- Rizaldy Sanchez y Cajili testified on February 24, 2005 that he was a passenger returning from Barangay Alapan when four armed men riding an owner-type jeepney blocked their way, frisked him and Darwin Reyes, and brought him to the Imus Police Station; Darwin Reyes was released and petitioner was detained.
- Petitioner admitted seeing the arresting officers for the first time and disclosed a prior dismissed charge for the same offense in Branch 90; he asserted innocence and denied unlawful possession.
- Trial court findings and sentence
- The Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite (RTC) rendered a decision dated April 21, 2005 finding petitioner guilty of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, concluding he was caught *in flagrante delicto* in actual possession of shabu and lending credence to the testimony of SPO1 Elmer Amposta.
- The RTC imposed imprisonment of twelve to fifteen years and a fine of Php300,000.
- Court of Appeals disposition
- Petitioner appealed; the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dated July 25, 2012 affirming the RTC, holding that the police had probable cause to stop petitioner leaving the house of an alleged drug dealer, that the seizure arose from a valid search, and that non-compliance with Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 regarding inventory and photography did not automatically render the seized item inadmissible because its integrity and evidentiary value had been preserved.
- The CA denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated November 20, 2012.
- Petitioner’s remedy and issues raised before the Supreme Court...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Legality of warrantless search and arrest
- Whether the warrantless search and seizure of the alleged shabu and petitioner’s arrest were lawful under exceptions to the warrant requirement, specifically *in flagrante delicto* arrest under Section 5, Rule 113 and search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Sec. 13.
- Whether the stop-and-frisk principle (Terry stop) justified the warrantless search and seizure.
- Applicability of plain view doctrine and evidentiary admissibility
- Whether the plain view doctrine applied to the seizure of the shabu.
- Whether n...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)