G.R. No. 78059 - De Leon vs. Esguerra

Petitioner Stephen Sy y Tibagong was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for illegal possession of a dangerous drug.
The offense involved the possession of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance (methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”).
An Information dated June 12, 2005, indicted petitioner under the aforementioned law, and he pleaded not guilty at his arraignment.

On June 11, 2005, at about 2:00 p.m., Police Senior Inspector Maria Ana Rivera-Dagasdas’ subordinate, PO3 Liberato Faelogo, received a tip from a concerned citizen that an illegal drug trade was taking place in Zone 3, Barangay Looc, Dumaguete City.
Accompanied by PO3 Dario Paquera, the police officers proceeded to the reported location.
While traversing a pathway within Zone 3, they observed petitioner approximately two meters away, examining and flicking a transparent plastic sachet.
The officers approached petitioner, identified themselves as law enforcers, and informed him of his arrest for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
During the arrest, as PO3 Faelogo was reciting the petitioner’s constitutional rights in the Cebuano dialect, the petitioner attempted to flee by boarding his motorcycle.
In the ensuing struggle:

A subsequent search revealed in the petitioner’s possession a disposable lighter.
The items—especially the sachet—were carefully marked (with initials “SS” and the date “06-11-05”), photographed, and inventoried at the police station in the presence of representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), Barangay officials, and PO2 Glenn Corsame of the PDEA.
The sachet was submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory and later to the Negros Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory where forensic chemist Senior Inspector Maria Ana Rivera-Dagasdas conducted a laboratory examination.

The qualitative examination yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The evidence was documented in a Chemistry Report and certification.

A joint affidavit of arrest was executed by PO3 Faelogo and PO3 Paquera, corroborating the sequence of events and the recovery of evidence.
Chain of custody was maintained from the moment of seizure, as evidenced by the proper inventory and photographic documentation.

Petitioner claimed he was in Barangay Looc to book a masseur and was not engaged in any illegal activity.
He contended that when he attempted to board his motorcycle, two unidentified men apprehended and handcuffed him without prior warning.
Petitioner maintained that the frisk and search conducted by the arresting officers, which involved removal of his pants and searching his person, were performed in an intimidating manner and in full view of onlookers.
At the police station, petitioner alleged that he repeatedly requested to undergo a drug examination but was refused.
He further claimed that he was physically abused (kicked and punched) by the Chief of Police named Hidalgo during the investigation at the station.

On May 12, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, Dumaguete City, rendered a decision convicting petitioner based on the established evidence.
The RTC sentenced the petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years, along with a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00), and ordered the confiscation and forfeiture of the seized sachet.
Petitioner appealed the RTC decision before the Court of Appeals (CA) which, on October 24, 2007, affirmed the decision in toto.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied on March 7, 2008.
Petitioner then elevated the case on certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising several errors related to the arrest, search and seizure, and evidentiary issues.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that police officers enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty when executing the arrest and search.
Whether petitioner’s warrantless arrest, based on his conduct in relation to the plastic sachet, was valid under the exceptions provided by law (i.e., arrest in flagrante delicto).
Whether petitioner’s right against unlawful searches and seizures was violated in the manner the search was conducted.
Whether the plastic sachet, being alleged to be the “fruit of a poisonous tree,” should be excluded from evidence.
Whether petitioner, by submitting to the proceedings of the lower courts without timely objecting, waived his right to contest the admission of the plastic sachet as evidence.