Case Summary (G.R. No. 240447)
Procedural History
Each appellant was charged under RA 9165 Sec. 13 (possession during a social gathering) and Sec. 11 (simple possession). The RTC convicted all three of both offenses (life imprisonment for social-gathering possession; reclusion temporal for simple possession). The CA affirmed. The appellants elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether charging and convicting appellants of both Sec. 11 and Sec. 13 offenses violated the double jeopardy clause (Art. II, Sec. 21, 1987 Constitution; Rule 117, Sec. 7).
- Whether the warrantless arrest and search were valid under Rule 113, Sec. 5.
- Whether the chain of custody rule (RA 9165 Sec. 21) was observed.
Double Jeopardy Analysis
Article II, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 117, Section 7 protect against multiple punishments for the same offense or same act. Sec. 13 (possession in a social gathering) expressly includes all elements of simple possession (Sec. 11) plus the presence of at least two other persons or a social gathering. Under the identity-of-offenses test, Sec. 11 is necessarily included in Sec. 13. Charging and convicting appellants separately under both provisions placed them twice in jeopardy for the same act. The correct remedy is acquittal for simple possession, leaving only the social-gathering count.
Warrantless Arrest and Search Analysis
The Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 2) requires a warrant based on probable cause, determined personally by a judge. Rule 113, Section 5(a) permits warrantless arrest only when the offense is committed in the officer’s presence. Here, officers relied solely on an informant’s tip and peeked through a slightly opened door from about ten meters away. They did not witness any overt act indicating an in-flagrante crime, nor did they have personal knowledge of a just-committed offense. Informant tips alone cannot justify warrantless entry, arrest, or search (People v. Yanson; People v. Martinez; People v. Bolasa). Consequently, the arrest was illegal ab initio, and the ensuing search and seizure inadmissible as fruits of the poisonous tree.
Chain of Custody Analysis
RA 9165 Sec. 21 mandates: immediate marking, inventory, and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused (or counsel), DOJ or barangay representative, and media. Actual compliance—link by link—is required to prove that the drug offered in court is the same as seized. In this case:
• Marking was delayed until arrival at the station;
• No DOJ, barangay, or media representative witnessed
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 240447)
Facts of the Case
- On June 10, 2011, at around 1:00 PM, a confidential informant told Dagupan City police of an ongoing “pot session” in an abandoned nipa hut in Sitio Silungan, Bonuan Binloc.
- A buy-bust team led by P/Supt. Joseph Rizaldy Dalope proceeded to the hut. PO2 Manuel Piapa Cruz peeked through a slightly ajar door and saw three men (Rangaig, Makairing, Juguilon) seated near a table with foil, a lighter, a tooter, sachets, and other paraphernalia.
- PO2 Cruz signaled his companions, who entered, arrested the three, and informed them of their constitutional rights. SPO1 Bayani Bactad recovered one plastic sachet from each accused containing suspected shabu.
- The officers seized the paraphernalia on the table, marked all items at the station (“BB-A-1,” “BB-A-2,” “BB-A-3” for the sachets; “MP-A1” to “MP-12” for paraphernalia), and prepared a Confiscation Receipt and Joint Affidavit of Arrest signed by witnesses.
- The marked specimens and request letters were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory. PSI Myrna Malojo-TodeAo confirmed the sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride; PCI Saturnina Valenzuela confirmed the urine samples of the accused tested positive for the same.
Charges Filed
- Four separate Informations (Crim. Case Nos. 2011-0295-D to 2011-0298-D) charged the appellants under R.A. 9165:
- Joint possession of shabu during a social gathering (Art. II, Sec. 13 in relation to Sec. 11) – one sachet (0.18 g) shared among the three.
- Individual possession of shabu (Sec. 11) – Makairing (0.08 g), Juguilon (0.06 g), Rangaig (0.17 g).
Trial Proceedings
- Arraignment: All three pleaded not guilty.
- Prosecution witnesses included PSI Malojo-TodeAo, PCI Valenzuela, PS/Insp. Myrna Malojo-TodeAo, Major Dalope, SPO1s Cacho, Bactad, Velasquez, PCI Valenzuela, PO2 Cruz, and civilian witnesses Rebecca Cabading and Alcantara.
- Defense witnesses: The accused each denied involvement, described an unprovoked armed abduction by men in bonnets, a ride to the station, and discovery of charges only when media arrived.
Regional Trial Court Decision
- On June 22, 2016, R.T.C. Branch 44 convicted all three:
- Crim. Case No. 2011-0295-D (joint possession in social gathering): Life imprisonment + ₱500,000 fine each.
- Crim. Case Nos. 2011-0296, ‑0297, ‑0298-D (individual possession): 12