Case Summary (G.R. No. 171531)
Key Dates
Alleged arrest and seizure: December 25, 2006 (around 11:30 a.m.). RTC decision: December 11, 2007. CA decision: May 25, 2011. Supreme Court decision: March 18, 2013.
Factual Background Presented by Prosecution
PO3 Renato de Leon testified that while driving his motorcycle he observed appellant from about 8–10 meters away holding and scrutinizing a plastic sachet which he identified as shabu. PO3 de Leon approached appellant, who attempted to flee but was apprehended with the help of a tricycle driver. PO3 de Leon allegedly confiscated the sachet, brought appellant to the 9th Avenue Police Station and then to SAID‑SOU, where he marked the seized sachet with the marking “ARZL/NV 12‑25‑06.” The marked item and appellant were turned over to PO2 Hipolito, who prepared and personally delivered the laboratory request and evidence to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where PSI Arturo received the item. The laboratory’s qualitative test showed the white crystalline substance (weighing 0.03 gram) to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Formal Charge and Plea
Appellant was charged with violation of Section 11 of RA 9165 for illegal possession of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.03 gram, as alleged in the Information. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty at arraignment.
Defense Narrative
Appellant denied the prosecution’s account. He maintained that while walking along Avenida he was called by a man on a motorcycle (identified as PO3 de Leon), was told not to run, frisked, and had his wallet taken (containing P1,000). He claimed he was detained at the 9th Avenue station, mauled by other detainees under orders of PO3 de Leon, and later taken to the Sangandaan Headquarters where two officers (referred to as “Michellea” and “Hipolito”) brought him to a firing range and subjected him to forced questioning, firing a gun beside his ear and mauling him. He sustained head injuries and received treatment at Diosdado Macapagal Hospital. He reported undergoing inquest the following day and being informed of charges; a separate charge (resisting arrest) was later dismissed.
RTC Ruling and Findings
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant, concluding that the elements of illegal possession were established: (1) possession of a prohibited drug, (2) possession not authorized by law, and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The RTC credited PO3 de Leon’s testimony—finding no ill motive for false testimony and noting his prior arrests of appellant for drug possession—and applied the plain view doctrine to the seizure. The court gave little weight to appellant’s denial and frame‑up claims due to lack of corroboration and did not accept the robbery allegation because appellant did not report it to superiors or initiate a complaint. The RTC imposed imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months and a P300,000 fine.
Court of Appeals’ Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto. It characterized the arrest as an in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113, finding that appellant exhibited overt or strange conduct that would reasonably arouse suspicion, that his prior criminal citations for drug possession and his attempt to flee supported the officer’s suspicion, and that the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody from seizure through laboratory receipt and presentation in court.
Issue on Appeal to the Supreme Court
The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC conviction—principally whether the warrantless apprehension and seizure were lawful and whether the seized substance was admissible.
Legal Standard on Warrantless Arrests (Rule 113, Sec. 5)
The Court restated Section 5, Rule 113: a peace officer or private person may arrest without warrant (a) when the person has committed, is committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the officer’s presence; (b) when an offense has just been committed and the officer has probable cause based on personal knowledge of facts to believe the person committed it; and (c) when the person is an escaped prisoner. For paragraph (a), two elements must concur: an overt act indicating commission or attempt and that the act occurred in the officer’s presence or within his view. Paragraph (b) requires that an offense had in fact just been committed and that the officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating the accused’s commission.
Supreme Court’s Analysis of the Arrest and PO3 de Leon’s Testimony
The Court critically examined PO3 de Leon’s testimony that he identified a “shabu” sachet from 8–10 meters away while riding a motorcycle and asserted recognition on the basis of prior arrests. The Court found it implausible that PO3 de Leon could accurately identify, from that distance and while driving, a minute quantity (0.03 gram) of a powdery substance inside a plastic sachet. Prior experience or prior arrests, the Court held, do not equate to the “personal knowledge” required by Section 5(b) nor su
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 171531)
Case Caption, Citation and Procedural Posture
- G.R. No. 201363; Decision promulgated March 18, 2013 by the Supreme Court Second Division (Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
- Appeal from the May 25, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31320, which affirmed in toto the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 123, Decision dated December 11, 2007 (penal judge: Edmundo T. Acuña).
- RTC conviction: appellant Nazareno Villareal y Lualhati convicted of violation of Section 11, Article 11 (also referenced in the record as Section 11, Article II) of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002); sentenced to imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
- Relief sought: review of the CA’s affirmation of the RTC conviction; sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s conviction.
Factual Antecedents (Prosecution’s Version)
- Date, time and place: December 25, 2006, at around 11:30 in the morning, along 5th Avenue (Caloocan City).
- Arresting officer and observation: PO3 Renato de Leon (SAID-SOU member) was driving his motorcycle toward home and saw appellant from about 8 to 10 meters away, "holding and scrutinizing in his hand a plastic sachet of shabu."
- Recognition: PO3 de Leon recognized appellant as someone he had previously arrested for illegal drug possession.
- Apprehension: On seeing PO3 de Leon, appellant attempted to escape but was apprehended quickly with the help of a tricycle driver; despite appellant’s attempts to resist arrest, PO3 de Leon was able to place appellant on his motorcycle and confiscate the plastic sachet.
- Custodial handling and marking: PO3 de Leon brought appellant to the 9th Avenue Police Station to fix handcuffs, then to the SAID-SOU office where PO3 de Leon marked the seized plastic sachet with the marking "RZL/NV 12-25-06" representing his and appellant’s initials and the date of arrest.
- Turnover and delivery for laboratory examination: PO3 de Leon turned over the marked evidence and appellant to investigator PO2 Randulfo Hipolito, who executed an acknowledgment receipt and prepared a letter request for laboratory examination; PO2 Hipolito personally delivered the request and the confiscated item to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where Police Senior Inspector Albert Arturo (PSI Arturo), the forensic chemist, received them.
- Forensic result and quantity: Qualitative examination showed the plastic sachet contained 0.03 gram of a white crystalline substance which tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
- Information and arraignment: Appellant was charged in an Information with violation of Section 11 (as cited in the record: Section 11, Article 11 / Section 11, Article II) of RA 9165 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs weighing 0.03 gram; when arraigned, appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty.
Appellant’s Defense and Allegations of Police Abuse
- Alternative narrative: Appellant denied PO3 de Leon’s account and claimed that on the date/time he was walking along Avenida, Rizal toward 5th Avenue when a person riding a motorcycle (who turned out to be PO3 de Leon) called him from behind.
- Alleged misconduct at initial contact: Appellant alleges PO3 de Leon told him not to run, frisked him, and took his wallet containing P1,000.00.
- Alleged detention abuse: Appellant claims he was brought to the 9th Avenue police station, detained, and mauled by eight other detainees under orders of PO3 de Leon.
- Further alleged mistreatment: Appellant alleges he was brought to Sangandaan Headquarters where two other officers whose names he recalled as "Michellea" and "Hipolito" took him to a "headquarters firing range"; there they allegedly forced him to answer questions about a stolen cellphone, firing a gun beside his ear each time he failed to answer, and mauling him when he continued to deny knowledge.
- Medical treatment and inquest: Appellant sustained head injuries and was treated at Diosdado Macapagal Hospital; the next day he underwent inquest proceedings before Fiscal Guiyab who informed him he was being charged with resisting arrest and Section 11 (the first charge eventually dismissed).
RTC Findings and Rationale for Conviction
- Elements found established: RTC found all elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs proven: (1) appellant possessed an item identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed said drug.
- Credibility and plain view: RTC found PO3 de Leon credible, noting no ill motive to testify falsely and that he had previously arrested appellant under RA 6425; RTC applied the plain view doctrine because the confiscated item was allegedly in PO3 de Leon’s plain view at the place and time of the arrest.
- Treatment of defense: RTC gave scant consideration to appellant’s denial and frame-up defense as uncorroborated; it refused to credit appellant’s robbery allega