G.R. No. 227366 - Macad vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 227366)

Relevant Dates and Procedural Posture

Alleged offense occurred November 27, 2011. Information filed November 29, 2011; petitioner pleaded not guilty. RTC rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty on September 16, 2013 and promulgated resolution January 10, 2014. CA affirmed by Decision dated March 17, 2016 and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated September 23, 2016. This petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court followed and was resolved in the challenged Supreme Court decision.

Charge and Statutory Provision

Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (transportation of illegal drugs). The RTC imposed life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000, and ordered forfeiture and turnover of the seized drugs to PDEA. The conviction rests on the seizure of bricks of marijuana from petitioner’s carton baggage and Sagada woven bag and forensic confirmation.

Prosecution’s Version of Events

PO1 Davies Falolo, off duty and in plain clothes, rode a bus to Bontoc and sat on the roof. Petitioner boarded at Botbot, threw a carton baggage to PO1 Falolo, and later boarded the roof two meters away. PO1 Falolo smelled a distinct marijuana odor from the carton and observed the carton’s irregular shape; he also noted the rectilinear, hard characteristic of petitioner’s Sagada woven bag. Falolo attempted to contact colleagues but lacked phone load, then followed petitioner by tricycle to Caluttit and, at COMPAC circle, called an on-duty officer (SPO2 Suagen). Petitioner consented to a baggage check but fled when SPO2 Suagen approached; officers pursued and arrested him near Sta. Rita Parish Church. At the police station the baggage was opened, revealing eleven bricks (10.1 kg) in the carton and six bricks (5.9 kg) in the Sagada bag; items were marked, photographed, inventoried in the presence of petitioner, barangay chairman, a prosecutor and media representative, and sent to the crime laboratory which tested positive for marijuana.

Defense’s Version of Events

Petitioner claimed he rode the bus with an unidentified companion who had a carton. The companion allegedly instructed petitioner to have the companion’s baggage dropped at the circle and left at the motorpool. At COMPAC, Falolo questioned petitioner about his companion; petitioner denied knowledge. When Falolo summoned another officer, petitioner ran; he alleged coercion at the municipal hall and claimed the baggage was not his.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Petitioner’s principal contentions: (1) CA misapprehended facts and erred in finding petitioner was committing a crime at arrest time, thus invalidating warrantless arrest and incidental search; (2) CA abused discretion by not excluding the seized marijuana under Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution (note: likely intended Article III, but argument challenges unreasonable searches and seizures); and (3) CA erred in upholding chain of custody as properly established.

Procedural Point — Mode of Appeal

The Supreme Court noted the CA imposed life imprisonment; under Section 13(c), Rule 124, an accused may appeal as of right to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals, which opens the entire case for review. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raises only questions of law and generally excludes reexamination of factual findings. The petition before the Supreme Court invoked grounds appropriate to Rule 65 and raised factual questions; thus it was procedurally infirm. The Court nevertheless addressed merits and denied the petition.

Legal Standard for Warrantless Arrests (Rule 113)

Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court provides three instances for lawful warrantless arrests: (a) in flagrante delicto (person committing or attempting to commit an offense in presence of arresting officer); (b) when an offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating commission by the accused; and (c) where the person is an escaped prisoner. Sections 5(a) and (b) require the arresting officer’s personal knowledge; under 5(a) an overt act witnessed by the officer must occur in his presence. Probable cause for arrest is a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by facts which, to a prudent person, would lead to belief that the accused is guilty.

Application of Probable Cause to the Facts

The Court found PO1 Falolo had probable cause to believe petitioner was transporting marijuana based on: (1) the distinctive smell of marijuana from the carton when Falolo caught it; (2) the irregular shape of the carton suggesting bricks; (3) the Sagada woven bag’s abnormal rectangular, hard quality consistent with concealed bricks; (4) petitioner’s assent to baggage inspection followed by flight upon sight of a uniformed officer; and (5) abandonment of the baggage. Falolo’s prior training and familiarity with marijuana odor and prior experience were credited. The Court deemed these cumulative circumstances sufficient to establish probable cause and that petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto; arrest and subsequent search were therefore lawful as incident to a valid arrest.

Warrantless Search Principles and Moving Vehicles

The decision summarized jurisprudence distinguishing routine visual inspections of vehicles from extensive searches requiring probable cause. The Court held Falolo had probable cause before any extensive search because the marijuana scent and other indicia justified belief that the vehicle contained evidence of crime. The Court also rejected petitioner’s contention that Falolo’s delay in effecting arrest or conducting search undermined probable cause, explaining Falolo was off duty, in plain clothes, in a crowded bus, without immediate backup or handcuffs; prudence and safety justified waiting for reinforcement and conducting inventory at the nearest police station.

Chain of Custody and Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR require immediate physical inventory and photography of seized drugs in the presence of the accused (or counsel/representative), a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official, and signing and provision of copies; the IRR allows inventory/photography at nearest police station when practicable for warrantless seizures and includes a saving clause permitting non-compliance for justifiable grounds provided integrity and evidentiary value are preserved. The prosecution bears the burden to show, with moral certainty, that the seized items presented in court are the same as those confiscated.

Application of Chain of Custody to the Case

The Court found substantial compliance: at the municipal police station the officers marked, photographed and inventoried the eleve

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 227366)

Case Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 838 Phil. 102; Third Division; G.R. No. 227366; Decision dated August 01, 2018; penned by Justice Gesmundo, J. (Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson) and Bersamin, JJ., concur; Leonen, J., filed a concurring opinion; Martires, J., on leave).
Petition by certiorari seeks reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated March 17, 2016 and CA Resolution dated August 30, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06638, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bontoc, Mountain Province, Branch 36, September 16, 2013 Judgment and January 10, 2014 Resolution in Criminal Case No. 2011-11-29-108.
RTC convicted petitioner Domingo Agyao Macad a.k.a. Agpad of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00; subject drugs were ordered forfeited to the government and turned over to PDEA.

Antecedents and Charge

Information dated November 29, 2011 charged petitioner with violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165; petitioner pleaded “not guilty.”
Trial proceeded in the RTC; prosecution and defense presented differing versions of events concerning possession, arrest, search, seizure, marking, inventory, laboratory testing, and chain of custody.

Version of the Prosecution

On the afternoon of November 27, 2011, PO1 Davies Falolo, not on duty and seated on top of a full Bing Bush bus from Baguio to Bontoc, received a carton baggage thrown by petitioner when petitioner boarded at Botbot.
PO1 Falolo smelled a distinct scent he associated with marijuana from the carton and noted an irregular (non-flat) shape; he also observed a Sagada woven bag carried by petitioner that appeared rectangular rather than oval and, upon touching, felt hard.
PO1 Falolo planned to inform other police officers but ran out of cellular load; after the bus arrived in Bontoc, petitioner alighted at Caluttit; PO1 Falolo alighted at DPWH compound to buy load, then took a tricycle to Caluttit.
Petitioner boarded the same tricycle; at COMPAC circle PO1 Falolo stopped the tricycle, called SPO2 Gaspar Suagen, and asked petitioner for permission to open his baggage; petitioner initially acceded but then ran toward Pines Kitchenette when SPO2 Suagen approached.
Both officers chased and apprehended petitioner in front of Sta. Rita Parish Church; petitioner was handcuffed; petitioner and his baggage were brought to the Municipal Police Station.
At the station, the baggage revealed eleven bricks of marijuana in the carton and six bricks in the Sagada woven bag; the bricks weighed 10.1 kg and 5.9 kg respectively; items were marked, photographed, and inventoried in the presence of petitioner, the barangay chairman, a prosecutor, and a media representative.
The items were forwarded to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office and tested positive for marijuana.

Version of the Defense

Petitioner claimed he boarded the bus with an unidentified man who had a carton box; upon alighting he called for a tricycle where PO1 Falolo and that unidentified man had already boarded; the unidentified man asked petitioner to have his baggage dropped at the “circle” and then alighted at the motorpool.
At COMPAC, PO1 Falolo allegedly questioned petitioner about his companion; petitioner denied having a companion and, upon seeing PO1 Falolo call for another police officer, ran away.
Petitioner asserted the baggage was not his; he stopped near the church and was then caught and arrested by PO1 Falolo and another officer.
Petitioner alleged he was taken to the COMPAC and then, after waiting thirty minutes before going to municipal hall, was coerced into confessing that the baggage was his.

RTC Ruling (January 10, 2014)

RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (transporting illegal drugs).
Sentence imposed: life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00; subject prohibited drugs forfeited to the government and directed to be turned over to PDEA; ordered transfer to Bureau of Corrections after 15 days unless ordered otherwise.
RTC held petitioner’s warrantless arrest lawful as he was caught in flagrante delicto of transporting marijuana; search and seizure were legal as incident to arrest.
RTC found the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved; noted no considerable time elapsed between petitioner’s flight and arrest; marking at the nearest police station was valid; minor inconsistencies in documentary evidence were explained by witnesses.
Petitioner filed motion for reconsideration denied by RTC in resolution dated January 10, 2014; petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Ruling (March 17, 2016; Resolution September 23, 2016)

CA affirmed RTC decision: search was incident to a lawful arrest because the warrantless arrest fell under Section 5(a) and (b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
CA emphasized the pungent smell of marijuana from petitioner’s baggage constituted probable cause for PO1 Falolo to effect a warrantless arrest.
CA concluded prosecution established the chain of custody.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before CA was denied; petitioner filed the present petition.

Issues Raised by Petitioner

Alleged misapprehension of facts by CA and RTC in finding petitioner was committing a crime when arrested, thereby justifying warrantless arrest, search, and seizure.
Claimed CA gravely abused discretion in not excluding the marijuana as evidence under Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution (note: the source states Article III, Section 3(2) but the correct text in the provided material quoted Article III, Section 2 elsewhere).
Argued CA erred in upholding the chain of custody of seized drugs.
Asserted PO1 Falolo’s delayed overt acts undermine existence of probable cause; baggage was left behind when police chased him thus compromising integrity of seized items; procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (marking/photography/inventory) were not followed immediately at place of arrest.

Respondent’s (OSG) Position

Contended PO1 Falolo had probable cause when petitioner boarded the bus due to distinctive smell of marijuana from the carton and unusual shape of Sagada woven bag; probable cause was reinforced when petitioner fled upon request to inspect baggage.
Argued warrantless arrest and incidental search were supported by probable cause; PO1 Falolo attempted to contact PHQ but ran out of cellular load; integrity and evidentiary value of seized items were preserved through chain of custody procedures.
Maintained minor discrepancy in “Turn Over of Evidence” document was inconsequential.

Procedural Issue: Mode of Appeal and Reviewability

Court observed Section 13(c), Rule 124 (as amended) allows appeal by notice to the Supreme Court when CA imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or lesser penalties; such notice of appeal is an appeal as of right opening the entire case for review, including questions not raised by parties.
Petition to the Court in this case was filed as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 but invoked grounds of “grave abuse of discretion” (a Rule 65 ground) while actually raising questions of fact and appreciation of testimonial and documentary evidence.
Even if tr