ECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 191366 December 13, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y NGELES, EDGAR DIZON Y FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ Y CAROLINO,
and RAFAEL GONZALES Y CUNANAN, Accused-Appellants.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the August 7, 2009 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. HC-
NO. 03269, which affirmed the February 13, 2008 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41,
Dagupan City (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 2006-0525-D, finding the accused guilty of violating
Section 13, in relation to Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for Possession of Dangerous
Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings.
The Facts
The Information indicting the accused reads:
That on or about the 2nd day of September 2006, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ARNOLD MARTINEZ y ANGELES,
EDGAR DIZON y FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ y CAROLINO, ROLAND DORIA y DIAZ and
RAFAEL GONZALES y CUNANAN, without authority of law, confederating together, acting jointly
and helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally, sniff and possess
dangerous drugs (shabu residues) contained in empty plastic sachets and rolled aluminum foil,
during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2)
person[s].
Contrary to Section 13, Article II, R.A. 9165.3
Version of the Prosecution
As culled from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, Police Officer 1 Bernard Azardon (PO1
Azardon), one of the apprehending officers, and Police Inspector Lady Ellen Maranion (P/Insp.
Maranion), the forensic chemical officer, it appears that on September 2, 2006, at around 12:45
o’clock in the afternoon, PO1 Azardon was on duty at the Police Community Precinct II along
Arellano Street, Dagupan City, when a concerned citizen entered the precinct and reported that a
pot session was going on in the house of accused Rafael Gonzales (Gonzales) in Trinidad
Subdivision, Dagupan City. Upon receipt of the report, PO1 Azardon, PO1 Alejandro Dela Cruz
(PO1 Dela Cruz), and members of the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team hied to Trinidad
Subdivision, Dagupan City. Upon inquiry from people in the area, the house of Gonzales was
located.
As the police officers entered the gate of the house, they saw accused Orlando Doria (Doria) coming
out of the side door and immediately arrested him. Inside the house, they saw accused Gonzales,
Arnold Martinez (A. Martinez), Edgar Dizon (Dizon), and Rezin Martinez (R. Martinez) in a room. The
four were surprised by the presence of the police. In front of them were open plastic sachets
(containing shabu residue), pieces of rolled used aluminum foil and pieces of used aluminum foil.
The accused were arrested and brought to the police precinct. The items found in the room were
seized and turned over to the Pangasinan Provincial Police Crime Laboratory Officer, P/Insp.
Maranion. The latter conducted a laboratory examination on the seized items and all 115 plastic
sachets, 11 pieces of rolled used aluminum foil, and 27 of the 49 pieces of used aluminum foil tested
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused were subjected to a drug test and, except
for Doria, they were found to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Version of the Defense
The defense, through its witnesses, accused A. Martinez, Dizon, and R. Martinez, claimed that in the
morning of September 2, 2006, the three of them were along Arellano Street in Trinidad Subdivision,
Dagupan City, to meet with a certain Apper who bumped the passenger jeep of R. Martinez and who
was to give the materials for the painting of said jeep. As they were going around the subdivision
looking for Apper, they saw Gonzales in front of his house and asked him if he noticed a person
pass by. While they were talking, Doria arrived. It was then that five to seven policemen emerged
and apprehended them. They were handcuffed and brought to the police station in Perez, Dagupan
City, where they were incarcerated and charged with sniffing shabu.
The Ruling of the RTC
The case against Doria was dismissed on a demurrer to evidence.
On February 13, 2008, the RTC rendered its decision, the dispositve portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused ARNOLD
MARTINEZ y Angeles, EDGAR DIZON y Ferrer, REZIN MARTINEZ y Carolino, and RAFAEL
GONZALES y Cunanan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Possession of Dangerous
Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings defined and penalized under Section 13 in
relation to Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165, and each of them is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine in the amount of P500,000.00, and to pay the cost of
suit.
The subject items are hereby forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in
accordance with the law.
SO ORDERED.4
The RTC was of the view that the positive testimony of prosecution witness PO1 Azardon, without
any showing of ill-motive on his part, prevailed over the defenses of denial and alibi put up by the
accused. The accused were held to have been in constructive possession of the subject items. A
conspiracy was also found present as there was a common purpose to possess the dangerous drug.
The Ruling of the CA
The CA ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the RTC as to the
constructive possession of the dangerous drugs by the accused. It further held that although the
procedure regarding the custody and disposition of evidence prescribed by Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165 was not strictly complied with, the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were
nonetheless safeguarded. The CA was of the view that the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty was not sufficiently controverted by the accused.
Not in conformity, the accused now interposes this appeal before this Court praying for the reversal
of the subject decision, presenting the following
Assignment of Errors
For accused Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon and Rezin Martinez
1. The lower court erred in finding the accused-appellants to be having a pot session
at the time of their arrest;
2. The lower court erred in not seeing through the antics of the police to plant the
shabu paraphernalia to justify the arrest of the accused-appellants without warrant;
3. The lower court erred in not finding that the corpus delicti has not been sufficiently
established;
4. The lower court erred in not finding the uncorroborated testimony of PO1 Azardon
insufficient to convict the accused-appellants of the crime charged;
5. The lower court erred in not acquitting the accused-appellants.
For accused Rafael Gonzales
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE
THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE
THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGED
CONFISCATED DRUG.
After an assiduous assessment of the evidentiary records, the Court finds that the prosecution failed
to prove the guilt of the accused. The principal reasons are 1] that the evidence against the accused
are inadmissible; and 2] that granting the same to be admissible, the chain of custody has not been
duly established.
Illegal Arrest, Search and Seizure
Indeed, the accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he fails to raise such issue
before arraignment.5 However, this waiver is limited only to the arrest. The legality of an arrest
affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. A waiver of an illegal
warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the
illegal warrantless arrest.6
Although the admissibility of the evidence was not raised as in issue by the accused, it has been
held that this Court has the power to correct any error, even if unassigned, if such is necessary in
arriving at a just decision,7 especially when the transcendental matter of life and liberty is at
stake.8 While it is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends
of justice, they nevertheless must not be met at the expense of substantial justice. Time and again,
this Court has reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate
the attainment of justice, rather than frustrate it. Technicalities should never be used to defeat
substantive rights.9 Thus, despite the procedural lapses of the accused, this Court shall rule on the
admissibility of the evidence in the case at bench. The clear infringement of the accused’s right to be
protected against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be ignored.
The State cannot, in a manner contrary to its constitutional guarantee, intrude into the persons of its
citizens as well as into their houses, papers and effects.10 Sec. 2, Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution
provides:
Section 2. - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
This constitutional guarantee, however, is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures
without warrant. Arrests and seizures in the following instances are allowed even in the absence of a
warrant — (i) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; 11 (ii) search of evidence in "plain view;"
(iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) stop and
frisk; and (vii) exigent and emergency circumstances. 12
This case would appear to fall under either a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest or a
plain view search, both of which require a lawful arrest in order to be considered valid exceptions to
the constitutional guarantee. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the
circumstances under which a warrantless arrest is lawful. Thus:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be
forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance
with section 7 of Rule 112.
A review of the facts reveal that the arrest of the accused was illegal and the subject items were
confiscated as an incident thereof. According to the testimony of PO1 Azardon and his Joint
Affidavit13 with PO1 Dela Cruz, they proceeded to, and entered, the house of accused Gonzales
based solely on the report of a concerned citizen that a pot session was going on in said house, to
wit:
Q: I go back to the information referred to you by the informant, did he not tell you how many
persons were actually conducting the pot session?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When you went to the place of Rafael Gonzales, of course you were not armed with a
search warrant, correct?
A: None, sir.
Q: Before the information was given to you by your alleged informant, you did not know
personally Rafael Gonzales?
A: I have not met [him] yet but I heard his name, sir.
Q: When this informant told you that he was told that there was [an] ongoing pot session in
the house of Rafael Gonzales, was this report to you placed in the police blotter before you
proceeded to the house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: I think it was no longer recorded, sir.
Q: In other words, you did not even bother to get the personal data or identity of the person
who told you that he was allegedly informed that there was an ongoing pot session in the
house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: What I know is that he is a jeepney driver of a downtown jeepney but he does not want to
be identified because he was afraid, sir.
Q: And likewise, he did not inform you who told him that there was an ongoing pot session in
the house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: No more, sir.
Q: But upon receiving such report from that jeepney driver you immediately formed a group
and went to the place of Rafael Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
