AMADO I. SARAUMvs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 2. NO. Although Section 21(1) of R.A. No.
on 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates Constitution provides an exclusionary rule which
J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 1 6
FACTS:
On August 17, 2006, a telephone call was received by PO3
Larrobis regarding the illegal drug activities in Sitio
Camansi, Barangay Lorega, CebuCity. A buy -
bust team was then formed in coordination with the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
against a certain "Pata." During the operation,
"Pata" eluded arrest as he tried to run towards his
shanty. The operatives entered the shanty where
Saraum and Esperanza were holding drug paraphernalia
apparently in preparation to have a" s h a b u " p o t
session (1) lighter; (1) rolled tissue paper;
( 1 ) a l u m i n u m t i n f o i l ) . T h e confiscated the
items were placed in the plastic pack of misua
wrapper, and made initial markings. At the police
station, the paraphernalia recovered from Saraum were also
marked. After the case was filed, the subject items were
turned over to the property custodian of the Office of City
Prosecutor. Saraum denied the commission of the alleged
offense. He testified that he was just passing when he was
held by men with firearms. He learned of the criminal charge
only when he was brought to the court. RTC find Saraum
guilty of the charge. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. On
appeal, Saraum questioned the decision of the lower court
in finding him guilty of illegal possession of paraphernalia
and the chain of custody of the items seized.
ISSUE:
1.W /N Saraum is guilty of illegal possession of
paraphernalia.
2.W /N thenon-compliance with thechain of custody
rule render the arrest illegal or the items confiscated
from the accused inadmissible.
HELD:1. YES. The elements of illegal possession
of equipment, instrument, apparatus and
other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are: (1) possession or control by
the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other
paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming,
administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any
dangerous drug into the body; and (2)such possession is not
authorized by law. In this case, the prosecution has
convincingly established that Saraum was in possession of
drug paraphernalia, particularly aluminum tin foil, rolled
tissue paper, and lighter, all of which were offered and
admitted in evidence.
that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a instructs that evidence obtained and confiscated
physical inventory of the seized items and photograph them, during unreasonable searches and seizures are
non-compliance therewith is not fatal as long as there is a deemed tainted and should be excluded for
justifiable ground and as long as the integrity and the being the fruit of a poisonous tree. Such pieces
evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are of evidence are therefore inadmissible.
properly preserved by the apprehending team. While the  The law requires that there first be a lawful arrest
procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and before a search can be made and this process
unbroken, in reality, it is almost always impossible to obtain cannot be done in the reverse.
an unbroken chain. Thus, failure to strictly comply with  While the stop and frisk is an instance wherein a
Section warrantless is allowed, the same cannot be done
21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render without probable cause based on the
an accused person's arrest illegal or the itemsseized or circumstances.
confiscated from him inadmissible. The most important factor  For a warrantless arrest to operate the following
is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of elements must be met:
the seized items. In this case, the prosecution was able to o Person arrested must execute an overt
demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the act indicating that he has just
confiscated drug paraphernalia had not been compromised committed, is actually committing or is
because it established the crucial link in the chain of custody attempting to commit a crime; and
of the seized items from the time they were first discovered o Such act is done in the presence or
until they were brought to the court for examination. within the view of the arresting officer
(there is personal knowledge on the part
COMERCIANTE V. PEOPLE | GR NO. 205926 of the office.
An information was filed with the RTC of Mandaluyong,
Branch 213, against Alvin Comerciante ("Comerciante"). He
was found to have in possession two (2) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets with shabu which the police
acquired after he was frisked after the police spotted him
(from a distance of ten [10] meters) standing and showing
"improper and unpleasant movements" together with Erick
Dasilla ("Dasilla"), with one of them passing a plastic sachet
to the other. The RTC convicted him of the crime of Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs. Accordingly, Comerciante
appealed with the Court of Appeals but the CA merely re-
affirmed the decision of the RTC. On appeal with the
Supreme Court, it was held that the search conducted on
Comerciante was illegal as "improper and unpleasant
movements" cannot be considered as probable cause,
hence, the warrantless arrest was unlawful. Considering the
foregoing, the evidence acquired from such search is
inadmissible (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine). Hence,
the SC acquitted Comerciante and exonerated him from all
criminal liability.
DOCTRINE
Exclusionary Rule
 To protect people from unreasonable searches
and seizures, Section 3(2), Article III of the
1
IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Alvin Comerciante (accused) [Commerciante]
Erick Dasilla (person Comerciante was standing with,
was eventually acquitted before Comerciante)
[Dasilla]
Agent Eduardo Radan (Agent of NARCOTICS Group)
[Agent Radan]
PO3 BienvyCalag II (arresting officer) [PO3 Calag]
FACTS
1. 30 July 2003 – Agent Radan and PO3 Calag
were on a motorcycle patrolling the area on their
way to visit their friend.
a. On the way to visit their friend
b. Cruising at a speed of 30 KM/HR
along Private Rode, Mandaluyong
c. Spotted at a distance of ten (10)
meters, two (2) men in front of a
jeepney
d. Men were identified as: Comerciante
and Dasilla
i. Men were standing and
showing "improper and
unpleasant movements"
ii. One of them was handing
plastic sachets to the other
e. At five (5) meters, PO3 Calag
introduced himself as a police officer
and arrested the two men, confiscating
two small plastic sachets containing
shabu.
2. After the prosecution rested its case, Dasilla filed
a demurrer to evidence subsequently granted by
the RTC, which resulted to Dasilla's acquittal.
3. Comerciante failed to file his own demurrer and
the RTC considered this as him waiving his right
to do so and ordered him to present his evidence
4. Comerciante averred, in his defense, that:
a. PO3 Calag was looking for "Barok" a
notorious drug pusher.
b. That after being arrested, they were
asked money in exchange for their
release.
c. When they failed to meet the demand,
they were brought to another police
station and underwent inquest
proceedings.
5. The RTC ruled on 29 July 2009 that Comerciante
was guilty of violating Section 11, Article II of RA
9165
a. RTC ruled that PO3 Calag conducted
a valid warrantless search since the
officer saw Comerciante in plain view
carrying the sachets.
b. Sentenced to twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to twenty (20) years
c. Ordered to pay the fine of Php
300,000.
6. Comerciante appealed to the CA but the CA
affirmed his conviction on 20 October 2011.
7. With the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration,
Comerciante filed a Rule 45 petition with the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. Whether or not the CA correctily affirmed
Comerciante's conviction. – No. The evidence
against Comerciante is inadmissible as it was
procured through an unlawful search (fruit of
the poisonous tree doctrine). The same
should result in his acquittal.
a. The OSG's argument, on behalf of the
People of the Philippines, was that the
warrantless arrest was valid pursuant
to the stop and frisk rule, and hence
Comerciante's conviction should be
upheld.
b. However, the SC held that:
i. There was no lawful arrest.
ii. Because it is highly
implausible that PO3 Calag,
even assuming that he has
perfect vision, would be able
to identify from 10 meters,
while moving at a speed of
30 km/hr on the motorcycle,
miniscule amounts of shabu
inside two (2) very small
plastic sachets as held by
Comerciante.
iii. There is no overt act that
could be properly attributed
to Comerciante as to rouse
suspicion in the mind of PO3
Calag that the former had
2
just committed, was
currently committing, or was
about to commit a crime.
iv. The acts of standing around
with a companion handing
over something cannot be
considered as a criminal act.
c. Hence, there being no lawful arrest,
the evidence procured is inadmissible,
being a fruit of the poisonous tree.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
Accordingly, the Decision dated October 20, 2011 and
the Resolution dated February 29, 2013 of the Court
of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 32813 are hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner
Alvin Comerciante y. Gonzales is hereby
ACQUITTED of the crime violating Section 11, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of the
Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his
immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held for
any other reason.
SO ORDERED.
OTHER NOTES
Evidence obtained through unlawful seizures should
be excluded as evidence because it is "the only
practical means of enforcing the constitutional
injunction against unreasonable searches and
seizures." (People v. Cogaed, 731 SCRA 427 [2014]).
RODEL LUZ y ONG, Petitioner,
vs
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Doctrine of the Case
: The Constitution guarantees the right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Any evidence obtained in violation of said right shall
be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
While the power to searchand seize may at times be
necessary to the public welfare, still it must be
exercised and the law implemented without
contravening the constitutional rights of citizens, for
the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient
importance to justify indifference to the basic
principles of government.
FACTS:
On March 10, 2003 at around 3:00 o’clock in the
morning, PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza, who was then
assigned as a traffic enforcer saw the accused, who
was coming from the direction of Panganiban D rive
and going to Diversion Road, Naga City, driving a
motorcycle without ahelmet; this prompted him to flag
down the accused for violating a municipal ordinance
which requires all motorcycle drivers to wear helmet
while driving said motor vehicle, he invited the
accused to come inside their sub-station since the
place is almost in front of the said sub-station.
He was alerted of the accused’s uneasy movement
and thus asked to take out the contents of
the pocket of his jacket, as the latter may have a
weapon inside it; the accused obliged and slowly put
out the contents of the pocket of his jacket which was
a nickel-like tin or metal container about two (2) to
three (3) inches in size, including two (2) cellphones,
one (1) pair of scissors and one (1) Swiss knife; upon
seeing the said container, he asked the accused
toopen it; after the accused opened the container, he
noticed a cartoon cover and something beneath it;
and upon his instruction, the accused spilled out the
contents of the container on the table which turned
out to be four (4) plastic sachets, the two (2) of which
were empty while the other two (2) contained
suspected shabu.
The RTC convicted petitioner of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs as the substances are positive of
methampethamine hydrochloride. Upon appeal, the
CA affirmed the RTCs Decision.
Upon a petition for review on certiorari, petitioner
claims that there was no lawful search and seizure,
because there was no lawful arrest. He claims that the
finding that there was a lawful arrest was erroneous,
since he was not even issued a citation ticket or
charged with violation of the city ordinance. Even
assuming there was a valid arrest, he claims that he
had never consented to the search conducted upon
him.
ISSUE:
Whether the road side questioning of a motorist,
pursuant to a routine traffic stop can be considered a
formal arrest.
RULING:
There was no valid arrest. When the petitioner was
flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he was
not, by the fact itself (ipso facto) and solely for this
reason, arrested. Arrest is the taking of a person into
custody in order that he or she may be bound to
answer for the commission of an offense. It is effected
by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or
by that person’s voluntary submission to the custody
of the one making the arrest. Neither the application
of actual force, manual touching of the body, or
physical restraint, nor a formal declaration of arrest, is
required. It is enough that there be an intention on the
part of one of the parties to arrest the other, and that
there be an intent on the part of the other to submit,
under the belief and impression that submission is
necessary. There being no valid arrest, the
warrantless search that resulted from it was likewise
illegal.
The following are the instances when a warrantless
search is allowed:
(i) a warrantless search incidental to a
lawful arrest;
(ii) search of evidence in “plain view;”
(iii) search of a moving vehicle;
(iv) consented warrantless search;
(v) customs search;
(vi) a “stop and frisk” search; and
(vii) exigent and emergency
circumstances.
None of the above-mentioned instances, especially a
search incident to a lawful arrest, are applicable to
this case. The subject items seized during the illegal
arrest are inadmissible. The drugs are the very
concrete evidence (corpus delicti) of the crime illegal
possession of dangerous drugs. Thus, their
inadmissibility precludes conviction and calls for the
acquittal of the accused
3
GEORGE ANTIQUERA y CODES, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Facts:
Police officers were conducting a police visibility patrol
in Pasay City when they saw two unidentified men
rush out of a house and boarded a jeep. Believing that
there was a crime, the police officers approached the
house. When they peeked through the partially
opened door, they saw Antiquera and Cruz engaged
in a pot session. The police officers entered the
house, introduced themselves and arrested Antiquera
and Cruz. While inspecting the vicinity, PO1
Cabutihan saw a jewellery box which contained shabu
and unused paraphernalia. The RTC found them
guilty of illegal possession of paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs. The court affirmed the decision of
RTC.
Issue:
Whether or not the arrest was invalid.
Held:
Yes.Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides that a “peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when,
in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense. ” This is what constitutes an arrest
in flagrante delicto, when an overt act constituting a
crime is done in the presence orwithin the view of the
arresting officer. But the circumstances here do not
make out a case of arrest made in in flagrante delicto.
The testimony of PO1 Cabutihan provides that the
door was only open approximately 4-6inches and that
they had to push it to see what is inside because even
as they peeked through it, they saw no activity that
warranted their entering it. Neither did they consider
securing first a search warrant before entering the
property. No crime was plainly exposed to theview of
the arresting officers that authorized the arrest of
accused without warrant. Considering that his arrest
was illegal, the search and seizure that resulted from
it was likewise illegal. Consequently, the various drug
paraphernalia that the police officers allegedly found
in the house and seized are inadmissible, having
proceeded from an invalid search and seizure. Since
the confiscated drug paraphernalia is the very
corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court has
nochoice but to acquit accused. His failure to object to
the irregularity of his arrest by itself is not enough to
sustain his conviction. A waiver of an illegal
warrantless arrest does not carry with it awaiver of the
inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal
warrantless arrest.The Supreme Court reversed and
set aside the RTC and CA Decisions and
ACQUITTED accused Antiquera for lack of evidence
sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DONALD VASQUEZ y SANDIGAN @
"DON," Accused-Appellant,
in the morning of April 1, 1998, a confidential
informant went to their office and reported that a
certain Donald Vasquez was engaged in illegal drug
activity. This alias Don supposedly claimed that he
was an employee of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI). According to the informant, alias
Don promised him a good commission if he (the
informant) would present a potential buyer of drugs.
P/Insp. Fajardo relayed the information to Police
Superintendent (P/Supt.) Pepito Domantay, the
commanding officer of their office. P/Insp. Fajardo
was then instructed to form a team and conduct a
possible buy-bust against alias Don. She formed a
team on the same day, which consisted of herself,
PO2 Trambulo, PO1 Agravante, PO1 Pedrosa, PO1
Sisteno, and PO1 De la Rosa. P/Insp. Fajardo was
the team leader. With the help of the informant, she
was able to set up a meeting with alias Don. The
meeting was to be held at around 9:00 p.m. on that
day at Cindy’s Restaurant located in Welcome
Rotonda. She was only supposed to meet alias Don
that night but she decided to bring the team along for
security reasons.17
At about 9:00 p.m. on even date, P/Insp. Fajardo and
her team went to the meeting place with the
informant. The members of her team positioned
themselves strategically inside the restaurant. The
informant introduced P/Insp. Fajardo to alias Don as
the buyer of shabu. She asked alias Don if he was
indeed an employee of the NBI and he replied in the
affirmative. They agreed to close the deal wherein she
would buy 250 grams of shabu for ₱250,000.00. They
also agreed to meet the following day at Cindy’s
Restaurant around 10:00 to 11:00 p.m.18
In the evening of April 2, 1998, P/Insp. Fajardo and
her team went back to Cindy’s Restaurant. Alias Don
was already waiting for her outside the establishment
when she arrived. He asked for the money and she
replied that she had the money with her. She brought
five genuine ₱500.00 bills, which were inserted on top
of five bundles of play money to make it appear that
she had ₱250,000.00 with her. After she showed the
money to alias Don, he suggested that they go to a
more secure place. They agreed for the sale to take
place at around 1:30 to 2:00 a.m. on April 3, 1998 in
front of alias Don’s apartment at 765 Valdez St.,
Sampaloc, Manila. The team proceeded to the
Western Police District (WPD) Station along U.N.
Avenue for coordination. Afterwards, the team held
their final briefing before they proceeded to the target
area. They agreed that the pre-arranged signal was
for P/Insp. Fajardo to scratch her hair, which would
signify that the deal had been consummated and the
rest of the team would rush up to the scene. The team
then travelled to the address given by alias Don.19
When the team arrived at the target area around 1:15
a.m. on April 3, 1998, the two vehicles they used were
parked along the corner of the street. P/Insp. Fajardo
and the informant walked towards the apartment of
alias Don and stood in front of the apartment gate.
Around 1:45 a.m., alias Don came out of the
apartment with a male companion. Alias Don
demanded to see the money, but P/Insp. Fajardo told
him that she wanted to see the drugs first. Alias Don
gave her the big brown envelope he was carrying and
she checked the contents thereof. Inside she found a
plastic sachet, about 10x8 inches in size, which
contained white crystalline substance. After checking
the contents of the envelope, she assumed that the
same was indeed shabu. She then gave the buy-bust
money to alias Don and scratched her hair to signal
4
the rest of the team to rush to the scene. P/Insp.
Fajardo identified herself as a narcotics agent. The
two suspects tried to flee but PO2 Trambulo was able
to stop them from doing so. P/Insp. Fajardo took
custody of the shabu. When she asked alias Don if
the latter had authority to possess or sell shabu, he
replied in the negative. P/Insp. Fajardo put her initials
"JSF" on the genuine ₱500.00 bills below the name of
Benigno Aquino. After the arrest of the two suspects,
the buy-bust team brought them to the police station.
The suspects’ rights were read to them and they were
subsequently booked.20
P/Insp. Fajardo said that she found out that alias Don
was in fact the appellant Donald Vasquez. She
learned of his name when he brought out his NBI ID
while he was being booked. P/Insp. Fajardo also
learned that the name of the appellant’s companion
was Reynaldo Siscar, who was also arrested and
brought to the police station. P/Insp. Fajardo
explained that after she gave the buy-bust money to
the appellant, the latter handed the same to Siscar
who was present the entire time the sale was being
consummated. Upon receiving the buy-bust money
placed inside a green plastic bag, Siscar looked at the
contents thereof and uttered "okey na to." P/Insp.
Fajardo marked the drug specimen and brought the
same to the Crime Laboratory. She was accompanied
there by PO2 Trambulo and PO1 Agravante. She
handed over the drug specimen to PO1 Agravante
who then turned it over to P/Insp. Taduran, the
forensic chemist on duty. The police officers
previously weighed the drug specimen. Thereafter,
the personnel at the crime laboratory weighed the
specimen again. P/Insp. Fajardo and her team waited
for the results of the laboratory examination.21
P/Insp. Fajardo further testified that the six plastic
bags of shabu seized during the buy-bust operation
were actually contained in a self-sealing plastic
envelope placed inside a brown envelope. When the
brown envelope was confiscated from the appellant,
she put her initials "JSF" therein and signed it. She
noticed that there were markings on the envelope that
read "DD-93-1303 re Antonio Roxas y Sunga" but she
did not bother to check out what they were for or who
made them. When she interrogated the appellant
about the brown envelope, she found out that the lawful. Having established the validity of the
same was submitted as evidence to the NBI Crime warrantless arrest in this case, the Court holds that
Laboratory. She also learned that the appellant the warrantless seizure of the illegal drugs from the
worked as a Laboratory Aide at the NBI Crime appellant is likewise valid. We held in People v.
Laboratory. She identified in court the six plastic Cabugatan55 that:
sachets of drugs that her team recovered, which
sachets she also initialed and signed. P/Insp. Fajardo
This interdiction against warrantless searches and
also stated that after the appellant was arrested, PO2
seizures, however, is not absolute and such
Trambulo conducted a body search on the two
warrantless searches and seizures have long been
suspects. The search yielded 12 more plastic sachets
deemed permissible by jurisprudence in instances of
of drugs from the appellant. The 12 sachets were
(1) search of moving vehicles, (2) seizure in plain
varied in sizes and were contained in a white
view, (3) customs searches, (4) waiver or consented
envelope. P/Insp. Fajardo placed her initials and
searches, (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search),
signature on the envelope. As to the 12 sachets, the
and search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last
same were initialed by P/Insp. Fajardo and signed by
includes a valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule,
PO2 Trambulo.22
an arrest is considered legitimate [if] effected with a
valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognize
RTC: convicted. Presumption of regularity on the part permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in
of the officers. Positive testimonies over bare denials. flagrante delicto, (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit, and
(3) arrest of escaped prisoners. (Citation omitted.)
CA: affirmed the conviction.
o secure a conviction for the crime of illegal sale of
regulated or prohibited drugs, the following elements
ISSUE:
should be satisfactorily proven: (1) the identity of the
buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration;
WON arrest was valid. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor.56 As held in People v. Chua Tan Lee,57 in a
prosecution of illegal sale of drugs, "what is material is
RULING: proof that the accused peddled illicit drugs, coupled
with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti." On
The Court rules that the appellant can no longer assail the other hand, the elements of illegal possession of
the validity of his arrest. We reiterated in People v. drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item
Tampis52 that "[a]ny objection, defect or irregularity or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2)
attending an arrest must be made before the accused such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
enters his plea on arraignment. Having failed to move accused freely and consciously possessed the said
for the quashing of the information against them drug.58
before their arraignment, appellants are now estopped
from questioning the legality of their arrest. Any
irregularity was cured upon their voluntary submission
to the trial court’s jurisdiction."53 Be that as it may, the
fact of the matter is that the appellant was caught in
flagrante delicto of selling illegal drugs to an
undercover police officer in a buy-bust operation. His
arrest, thus, falls within the ambit of Section 5(a), Rule
11354 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
when an arrest made without warrant is deemed