G.R. No. 209078 - Villasana y Cabahug vs. People

The case involves petitioner Joseph Villasana y Cabahug challenging his conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Initially, the Regional Trial Court convicted Villasana based on evidence allegedly seized during his arrest.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and, upon petition, the case eventually reached the Supreme Court on review under Rule 45.

On January 4, 2005, a confidential informant reported that Villasana and an accomplice were selling drugs along Hustisya Street, Marulas, Valenzuela City.
A police team was formed, headed by Inspector Mukaram and composed of officers including PO3 Martinez, PO2 Sanchez, and PO2 Magno, to conduct a surveillance operation.
At approximately 11:30 p.m. on the same day, the team observed Villasana emerging from an alley while talking to a woman and handling a plastic sachet.
PO3 Martinez, after approaching Villasana (who was already identified from previous description and known to fellow officers), apprehended him by firmly grasping his hand and identifying himself as a police officer.
In his version, Villasana testified that he was conversing with companions inside a jeepney near his residence when police officers, after accosting people playing a game nearby, called him out and forcibly detained him.

Upon arrest, a plastic sachet allegedly containing 0.15 gram of white crystalline substance (shabu) was confiscated.
An inventory was made at the Marulas Barangay Hall and later, the evidence was delivered to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for analysis.
Testimony indicated that PO3 Martinez “marked” the confiscated sachet with the initials “JCV” but was vague as to whether the marking occurred immediately in the presence of the accused or at a designated office.
Discrepancies appeared in the documents and labeling – for instance, variations in the identification number on the Request for Laboratory Examination and the Physical Science Report raised doubts as to the integrity of the chain of custody.
The police officers’ failure to strictly adhere to the inventory and photograph requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 contributed to concerns on whether the evidence’s integrity was properly preserved.

Based on the established chain of events, the trial court convicted Villasana of violating Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, sentencing him to imprisonment and imposing a fine.
The Court of Appeals later upheld the conviction by relying on the presumption of regularity in police duty, finding that the warrantless arrest and subsequent procedures were justified by the circumstances.
Although Villasana filed a Motion for Reconsideration in the Court of Appeals, the resolution denied his appeal, prompting him to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.

Villasana contended that his arrest was conducted warrantlessly and did not satisfy the overt act and personal knowledge requirements necessary for a valid in flagrante delicto arrest.
He asserted that the seizure of the alleged shabu was tainted by irregularities in handling and marking, thereby violating mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 21 of RA 9165.
Additionally, he argued that entering his plea without objecting to the arrest did not constitute a waiver of his right to challenge the admissibility of the evidence gathered through the illegal arrest.

Whether facts can even be raised in a Rule 45 petition, which is generally limited to questions of law, particularly when factual determinations significantly affect the outcome of the case.

Whether the warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful under the requirements for an in flagrante delicto arrest, specifically regarding:

The necessity of an overt act in the presence of the arresting officer.
The requirement that the officer have direct personal knowledge of the criminal act.

Considering that even if the seizure appeared reasonable, the arresting officers failed to comply with the explicit procedural safeguards (e.g., immediate marking, inventory, and photographic requirements) mandated by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
If such noncompliance compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drug.

Whether the prosecution was able to prove the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite the alleged irregularities in the process of apprehension and evidence handling.