Title
Villasana y Cabahug vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 209078
Decision Date
Sep 4, 2019
Joseph Villasana acquitted of drug possession due to invalid warrantless arrest, unlawful seizure, and procedural lapses in handling evidence, creating reasonable doubt.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 209078)

Stipulations and primary testimonial evidence

During pre-trial the parties stipulated to the court’s jurisdiction, the identity of the accused, and a chain-of-custody sequence acknowledging that PO2 Sanchez received evidence from PO3 Martinez, that PO2 Sanchez prepared the laboratory request, and that PO3 Martinez delivered the specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The forensic chemist, Inspector Arturo, testified via stipulation that the examined specimen yielded positive qualitative results for methamphetamine hydrochloride (Physical Sciences Report No. D-006-05).

Prosecution’s factual version

PO3 Martinez testified that at about 11:30 p.m. on January 4, 2005 a surveillance team acting on a confidential informant’s tip proceeded to the target area. From inside a van and through a tinted windshield he saw petitioner emerge from an alley roughly five to six meters away, speaking with a woman and holding a plastic sachet. The officers approached discreetly, Martinez introduced himself, told petitioner not to throw the sachet, observed petitioner holding what he verified to be shabu, arrested him, and confiscated the sachet. The seized item was said to have been marked with petitioner’s initials “JCV,” inventoried at Marulas Barangay Hall in the presence of barangay officials, and later brought to the Crime Laboratory.

Defense account and trial discrepancies

Petitioner testified that, at around 8:00 p.m. on January 4, 2005, he was conversing inside a jeepney parked in front of his house when police accosted nearby persons, called him out, forcibly put him into a vehicle, and detained him at the Narcotics Office while awaiting an “areglo” (bribe) that did not materialize. He stated he was later brought to Marulas Barangay Hall and shown the purported evidence. A defense witness corroborated aspects of petitioner’s account. The record shows inconsistencies in testimony as to the identities of officers present, the precise locations where marking and inventory occurred, and who actually received and turned over the evidence to the laboratory.

Issue before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered, inter alia: (1) whether factual issues were cognizable in a Rule 45 petition; and (2) whether petitioner’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, particularly whether the warrantless arrest and the subsequent seizure were lawful and whether the chain of custody and Section 21 RA 9165 requirements were observed to preserve the integrity of the seized drug.

Rule 45 standard and review of factual findings

The Court reiterated that Rule 45 ordinarily confines review to questions of law and that appellate courts give deference to factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. However, the Court recognized that it may revisit factual findings when facts of weight and substance were overlooked, misconstrued, or misapplied and when the Court is not convinced findings conform to the evidence of record.

Constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures

Under the 1987 Constitution, citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures; searches generally require a judicially issued warrant based on personal determination of probable cause. Evidence obtained from an unreasonable search is inadmissible under Article III protections. The Court noted recognized exceptions, including search incidental to a lawful arrest, but stressed that exceptions require a lawful arrest that precedes the search.

Law on warrantless arrests and the in flagrante delicto (overt act) test

The Court reviewed Rule 113, Section 5(a) governing arrests without warrant when an offense is committed in the officer’s presence and reiterated the overt act test: (1) the accused must execute an overt act indicating he has just committed, is committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; and (2) that overt act must occur in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Both the in flagrante and the “just-committed” arrest under Section 5(b) require personal knowledge or observation by the arresting officer supporting probable cause.

Application of the in flagrante test to the facts

The Court found PO3 Martinez’s testimony insufficient to establish the requisite overt act and personal knowledge to justify an in flagrante arrest. Martinez was positioned roughly six to ten meters away in a van with a tinted windshield at night; his testimony did not affirm that he personally observed the sachet’s contents or that he had a reasonable basis to conclude a crime was occurring before he approached petitioner. The Court considered jurisprudence stressing the implausibility of discerning minute quantities of white crystalline substances from such distance and under those circumstances. The record indicated Martinez only confirmed the sachet’s contents after physically taking petitioner’s hand and confiscating the item.

Reliance on informant tip and identification by other officers

The Court emphasized that a confidential informant’s tip or a suspect’s identification by other officers is insufficient alone to justify a warrantless in flagrante arrest absent independent, contemporaneous circumstances observable by the arresting officer that a crime was being committed. Here, the informant’s tip and knowledge by some officers of petitioner did not substitute for the arresting officer’s personal observation of an overt criminal act.

Effect of invalid arrest on the admissibility of the seized drug

Because the Court found the arrest unlawful, the seizure incident to that arrest was ruled unreasonable and the seized drug inadmissible. The Court further clarified that petitioner’s failure to challenge the arrest before arraignment affected only the court’s jurisdiction over his person and did not waive his right to contest the admissibility of evidence obtained through an illegal arrest.

Chain of custody and integrity of the dangerous drug evidence

The Court examined the chain of custody requirements and the statutory and regulatory mandates under Section 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR which require immediate marking, physical inventory, and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative and certain other witnesses, except where justifiable grounds for departure exist and the integrity of the items is nevertheless preserved. The Court highlighted the special need for strict compliance due to the diminutive and fungible nature of illicit substances.

Specific chain-of-custody and Section 21 deficiencies in the record

The Court identified multiple defects: (1) the seized sachet was not clearly marked immedia

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms