Case Summary (G.R. No. 239866)
Key Dates
Alleged seizure and apprehension: August 16, 2015. RTC decision convicting petitioner: November 2, 2016. Court of Appeals decision affirming conviction: March 28, 2018. CA resolution denying reconsideration: June 7, 2018. Supreme Court decision: September 11, 2019.
Charge and Statutory Provision
Polangcos was charged under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for possession of one heat-sealed plastic sachet marked “PJP-1 08-16-15” containing 0.05 gram of a white crystalline substance that tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The prosecution bore the burden to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the elements of unlawful possession as defined by RA 9165.
Factual Background
Police on mobile patrol observed a green RACAL motorcycle without a plate and pursued it. The motorcycle rider was identified by officers as Paulo Jackson Polangcos. According to SPO2 Juntanilla’s sworn account, during a body frisk conducted when Polangcos alighted from his motorcycle, a plastic sachet allegedly fell from Polangcos’s cap. The sachet was marked “PJP-1 8/16/15,” inventoried in the presence of a barangay official, turned over (via PO2 Diola) to PCI Libres, and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (Physical Science Report No. MCSO-D-148-15). The defense offered no testimony or evidence at trial; the accused was absent during the scheduled presentation of defense evidence.
Trial Court Ruling (RTC)
The Regional Trial Court found Polangcos guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC relied in part on the presumption of regularity in official duties to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved despite alleged procedural lapses. The court held that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 and perceived breaks in the chain of custody did not render the arrest illegal or the evidence inadmissible. Sentencing was imposed (reclusion temporal range) and a fine.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC. It found that the prosecution established the statutory elements of illegal possession: identification of the prohibited item as a drug, lack of legal authorization for possession, and conscious possession by the accused. The CA acknowledged imperfect compliance with chain-of-custody procedures but deemed such imperfections non-fatal so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved. The CA also applied the principle that objections to arrests must be raised prior to plea on arraignment and held that any arrest irregularity was cured by Polangcos’s submission to the court’s jurisdiction.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether the RTC and CA erred in convicting Polangcos, specifically whether the search and seizure that produced the alleged corpus delicti were lawful, whether purported consent to search existed, and whether the evidence was admissible in light of constitutional protections.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Lawful Arrest and Search
The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious. It emphasized that the immediate cause for apprehension was traffic-related violations—lack of plate number and expired OR/CR—which are punishable by fines (municipal/city ordinance fine for no plate; LTO schedule for expired OR/CR). Because these violations did not entail a penalty of imprisonment, there could be no lawful custodial arrest that would render a subsequent frisk a lawful search incidental to arrest. The Court relied on controlling precedent (People v. Cristobal, as discussed in the decision) to hold that when only fines are involved, arresting the person and conducting a search without lawful basis is illegal.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Exclusionary Rule and Evidence Admissibility
Applying Article III of the 1987 Constitution, the Court reiterated the exclusionary rule: any item seized through an unconstitutional search and seizure is inadmissible “for any purpose in any proceeding” (Section 3(2), Article III). Because the Court determined the frisk and seizure were products of an invalid arrest/search, the corpus delicti (the seized sachet and its contents) constituted excluded evidence. Once the corpus delicti was excluded, the prosecution was left without admissible evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence.
Supreme Court’s Analysis — Consent and Waiver of Rights
The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the search was consented to by Polangcos. The Court applied the Chua Ho San standard for waiver: to establish a valid waiver of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches, there must be proof that (1) the right existed, (2) the person had knowledge of the right, and (3) the person actually intended to relinquish it. The record did not show proof of an actual intention to waive. SPO2 Juntanilla’s testimony indicated that he “immediately frisked” Polangcos before issuing a ticket and that the frisk was conducted because of the traffic violation; there was no evidence Polangcos knowingly consented. The Court therefore rejected the consent argument.
Supreme Court’s Assessment of Credibility and Circumstances of Discovery
The Court questioned the credibility of the prosecution’s account that the sachet fell from Polangcos’s cap. It observed the implausibility that someone knowingly carrying contraband would remove a cap that contained it, and it noted inconsistencies regarding whether Polangcos could have been wearing both a helmet (mandated by RA 10054) and a cap at the time of apprehension. These circumstances undermined reliance on the officer’s testimony to validate the search and seizure.
Supreme Court’s Emphasis on Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof
The Court reiterated the constitutional presumption of innocence (Article III, Section 14(2)) and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Even though the defense did not present evidence, the exclusion of the p
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 239866)
Citation and Case Nature
- 862 Phil. 764, Second Division; G.R. No. 239866; Decision dated September 11, 2019, penned by Justice Caguioa.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari from the Court of Appeals (CA) ruling in CA-G.R. CR No. 39705.
- Criminal prosecution for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), as amended.
- Relief sought: reversal of conviction and acquittal of petitioner Paulo Jackson F. Polangcos y Francisco (Polangcos).
Accusatory Allegation (Information)
- Date and place alleged: on or about 16 August 2015, in the City of Marikina, within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
- Accusation: willfully, unlawfully and knowingly having in his possession one (1) plastic sachet containing 0.05 grams of white crystalline substance suspected as shabu, subsequently marked "PJP-1 08-16-15", which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride; possession not authorized by law.
- Charge stated to be contrary to law under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
Pre-trial and Trial Posture
- Polangcos pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
- Pre-trial and trial on the merits followed.
- Defense did not present evidence; Polangcos did not testify and was absent during scheduled defense presentation.
- Case submitted for decision following prosecution presentation.
Prosecution’s Factual Account (as summarized by the CA)
- SPO2 Rey J. Juntanilla (SPO2 Juntanilla) testimony:
- On 16 August 2015, initially stated he was on board a mobile patrol car at around 6:40 p.m. along J.P. Rizal St., Marikina City, when they spotted a green RACAL motorcycle without a plate number and pursued it.
- In his Pagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay, he narrated that they caught up with the motorcycle and he tailed the rider whom they identified as Paulo Jackson Polangcos y Francisco.
- During a body frisk, a piece of plastic sachet containing suspected shabu allegedly fell from the suspect’s hat; the officers then arrested the suspect, informed him of the law and his rights, and marked the seized item "PJP-1 8/16/15."
- Inventory of evidence was witnessed by Barangay Kagawad Rogel Santiago of Brgy. Malanday, Marikina City.
- On cross-examination, SPO2 Juntanilla:
- Stated that the apprehension occurred at about 11:40 p.m. (contrasting earlier time reference).
- Admitted he arrested the accused for violation of a city ordinance and issued a receipt for that violation.
- Testified he frisked the accused before issuing the Ordinance Violation Receipt and marked the plastic sachet seized along J.P. Rizal.
- Recalled turning over the seized item to PO2 Diola, who was not named in the Chain of Custody Form.
- On re-direct, SPO2 Juntanilla:
- Stated PO2 Diola handed the seized item to Forensic Chemist Police Chief Inspector Margarita Libres (PCI Libres).
- Identified in open court the item he marked and claimed it was the same item submitted to the crime laboratory.
Forensic and Documentary Evidence
- Physical Science Report No. MCSO-D-148-15 by PCI Libres:
- Qualitative examination of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked "PJP-1 08-16-15" containing 0.05 gram of white crystalline substance gave a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
- Chain of Custody issues:
- PO2 Diola was said to have received the seized item from SPO2 Juntanilla but was not named in the Chain of Custody Form.
- The prosecution relied on testimony and the forensic report to link the marked item to laboratory examination.
Defense Case and Presentation
- Defense failed to present any evidence.
- Polangcos was absent during scheduled presentation of defense evidence and did not take the witness stand.
- No testimony or documentary evidence offered by defense to counter prosecution’s proofs.
RTC Decision (Regional Trial Court, Branch 263, Marikina City)
- Decision dated November 2, 2016, convicted Polangcos beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
- Sentence: Imprisonment of Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day to Twenty (20) Years, and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
- RTC reasoning and findings:
- Relied on presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty to conclude that the prosecution demonstrated preservation of integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.
- Held non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 did not render arrest illegal.
- Recognized that perfect compliance with chain of custody is ideal but stated it is impossible to always obtain an unbroken chain; perceived break (absence of the officer’s name to whom the seized item was turned over) was deemed not fatal.
Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Resolution
- CA Decision dated March 28, 2018 (CA-G.R. CR No. 39705) affirmed the RTC conviction.
- CA analysis:
- Found prosecution established all elements of the crime: (1) accused in possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug; (2) possession not authorized by law; (3) accused freely and consciously possessed the drug (citing People v. Unisa).
- Held that failure to strictly comply with chain-of-custody rule was not fatal; what is most important is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
- Ruled Polangcos could no longer assail validity of his arrest because objections to arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea