Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

G.R. No.

183656

September 4, 2009

GILBERT ZALAMEDA, Petitioner,


vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
The prosecution charged the petitioner before
the RTC with violation of Section 11 (and 12),
Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Facts as narrated by the prosecution (maoy
gidawat sa SC)
At around 5:15 a.m. of September 14, 2003,
SPO4 Mignelito Orbeta (SPO4 Orbeta), the desk
officer of Precinct 1, Makati City, received a
phone call from a concerned citizen regarding
an on-going "pot session" at 2725 D. Gomez St.,
Barangay Tejeros, Makati City. The house
number was specified.
Acting on this information, SPO4 Orbeta
dispatched PO2 Faustino De Guia (PO2 De
Guia), PO2 Renato De Guzman, (PO2 De
Guzman), PO2 Gonzalo Acnam, PO1 Donie
Tidang (PO1 Tidang), and one Major Ancheta to
D. Gomez St., Barangay Tejeros to verify the
report. They were in uniform. They reached
their intended destination at 5:25 a.m. which
they found to be a house located along D.
Gomez St. They found the door of the house
slightly open. PO2 De Guzman peeped inside
and saw the petitioner and Villaflor sniffing
smoke "may sinisinghot sila na usok" while
sitting on a bed. PO2 De Guzman gave a
"thumbs-up" sign to his companions who joined
him in immediately rushing inside the house.
Villaflor was holding a tooter at that point,
which he threw away. The petitioner initially
showed resistance when the police introduced
themselves as law enforcers. They frisked the
petitioner and Villafor in accordance with
police procedure, and recovered from the
petitioners right pocket a rectangular plastic
sachet
containing
white
crystalline
substances. The police likewise found on top of

the bed aluminum foils (later confirmed to


have traces of shabu), three (3) plastic sachets
containing
traces
of
white
crystalline
substance, a pair of scissors, a disposable
lighter, a bag with a plastic zipper, and an
improvised tooter. The police handcuffed the
petitioner and Villaflor, informed them of their
rights and their violation of R.A. No. 9165, and
brought them to the police station.
At the police station, PO2 De Guzman marked
the confiscated items, and turned them and
the suspects to SPO4 Arsenio Mangulabnan
(SPO4 Mangulabnan). The latter prepared a
request
for
laboratory
examination;
immediately after, the seized items were
brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
analysis and examination. Police Inspector
Karen S. Palacios (Police Inspector Palacios),
Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime
Laboratory, conducted an examination on the
specimens submitted, and found them to be
positive for the presence of shabu. Urine tests
conducted on the petitioner and Villaflor also
yielded a positive result.
(The petitioner presented a different version
but I will not present here anymore because I
am not the petitioner. Joke lang. Makita ra
japun sa decision).
RTC: guilty!
CA: Affirmed
reconsideration

RTC;

denied

motion

for

ISSUE:
In the present petition, petitioner alleges that the
items confiscated from him were inadmissible,
and that the prosecution failed to prove the
existence of the illegal drug.
HELD:
We DENY the petition for lack of merit. The
records of the case records support the
conclusion that a lawful arrest, search and

seizure took place, and that the prosecution fully


discharged its burden of establishing all the
elements necessary for conviction for the crimes
charged beyond reasonable doubt.

RATIO:
The prosecution duly established the elements
of the crimes charged (ayaw na ni ah basta)
PO2 De Guzman testified in a spontaneous,
straightforward and categorical manner, proving
all the elements of the crimes charged; he never
wavered despite the grueling cross-examination
by the defense counsel.
Legality of petitioners arrest
We stress at the outset that the petitioner failed
to question the legality of his warrantless arrest.
The established rule is that an accused may
be estopped from assailing the legality of his
arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of
the Information against him before his
arraignment. Any objection involving the
arrest or the procedure in the courts
acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of
an accused must be made before he enters
his plea; otherwise the objection is deemed
waived.
In any event, we carefully examined the records
and now hold that the warrantless arrest
conducted on the petitioner was valid. Section 5,
Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
lists the situations when a person may be
arrested without a warrant, thus (memorize na ni
niyo uy! Di na ibutang para mubo ra)
Paragraph (a) of Section 5 is commonly known
as an in flagrante delicto arrest. For a
warrantless arrest of an accused caught in

flagrante delicto to be valid, two requisites must


concur: (1) the person to be arrested must
execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt
act is done in the presence or within the view of
the arresting officer.
After carefully evaluating the evidence in its
totality, we hold that the prosecution successfully
established that the petitioner was arrested in
flagrante delicto.
We emphasize that the series of events that led
the police to the petitioners house and to his
arrest were triggered by a "tip" from a concerned
citizen that a "pot session" was in progress at
the petitioners house located on D. Gomez
Street. Under the circumstances, the police
did not have enough time to secure a search
warrant considering the "time element"
involved in the process (i.e., a pot session
may not be for an extended period of time and it
was then 5:15 a.m.). In view of the urgency,
SPO4 Orbeta immediately dispatched his men
to proceed to the identified place 2725 D.
Gomez Street to verify the report. At the place,
the responding police officers verified from a
slightly opened door and saw the petitioner and
Villaflor "sniffing smoke" to use the words of
PO2 De Guzman, or "sumisinghot ng shabu" as
PO2 De Guia put it. There was therefore
sufficient probable cause for the police officers
to believe that the petitioner and Villaflor were
then and there committing a crime. As it turned
out, the petitioner indeed possessed a prohibited
drug and, together with Villaflor, was even using
a prohibited drug and likewise illegally
possessed drug paraphernalia, contrary to law.
When an accused is caught in flagrante
delicto, the police officers are not only
authorized but are duty-bound to arrest him
even without a warrant.
In the course of the arrest and in accordance
with police procedures, the petitioner and
Villaflor were frisked, which search yielded the
prohibited drug in the petitioners possession.
The police, aside from seeing Villaflor throw

away a tooter, also saw various drug


paraphernalia scattered on top of the petitioners
bed. These circumstances were sufficient to
justify the warrantless search and seizure that
yielded one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet of
shabu. In this regard, Section 13, Rule 126 of
the Rules of Court states:
Section 13. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest. A
person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may
have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a search
warrant.

The petitioner also harps on the fact that the


police did not conduct a prior surveillance to
verify the tipped information. We emphasize that
the "tip" has reference to an ongoing pot session
an activity that does not usually last for an
extended period. We have held that when time is
of the essence, the police may dispense with the
need for prior surveillance. Simply stated, a
prior surveillance is not necessary where the
police operatives are pressed for time to
capture a suspected offender, as in this case.
Thus, the absence of a surveillance did not
undermine the validity of the petitioners
arrest.

The seizure of the various drug paraphernalia is


likewise beyond question. Under the plain view
doctrine, objects falling in the "plain view" of
an officer who has a right to be in the
position to have that view are subject to
seizure and may be presented as evidence.
This doctrine applies when the following
requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer
in search of the evidence has a prior justification
for an intrusion or is in a position from which he
can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of
the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c)
it is immediately apparent to the officer that the
item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

Denial and extortion

All the foregoing requirements for a lawful


search and seizure are present in this case. The
police officers had prior justification to be at the
petitioners place as they were dispatched by
their desk officer; they arrested the petitioner
and Villaflor as they had reason to believe that
they were illegally using and possessing a
prohibited drug and drug paraphernalia. The
search of the petitioner incident to his arrest
yielded the confiscated crystalline substance
which later proved to be shabu. In the course of
their lawful intrusion, they inadvertently saw the
various drug paraphernalia scattered on the bed.
As these items were plainly visible, the police
officers were justified in seizing them.

Non-presentation of the Informant

As the lower courts did, we find the petitioners


story unworthy of belief.
Petitioners claim of extortion is similarly
untenable. An allegation of frame-up and
extortion by police officers is a common and
standard defense in most dangerous drug
cases. It is viewed by this Court with disfavor, for
it can be easily concocted. To substantiate such
a defense, the evidence must be clear and
convincing. (super short-cut na siya uy)

The settled rule is that the presentation of an


informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential
for conviction nor is it indispensable for a
successful prosecution because his testimony
would be merely corroborative and cumulative.
(oh, intro ra japun ni)
The Integrity and Evidentiary Value of the
Examined and Presented Seized Items
The chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the proponent claims
it to be.

Contrary to what the petitioner wants to portray,


the chain of custody of the seized prohibited
drug was shown not to have been broken. (giexplain dayonbasta the prosecution was able
to establish the crucial link of the chain of
custody).

The weight to be given by the courts on said


evidence depends on the circumstances
obtaining in each case.
The proper penalties
I-overdose sa shabu! Bitaw, ayaw na uy

We also reject the petitioners claim that the


non-presentation of the forensic chemist was
fatal to the prosecutions case. The petitioner
never raised in issue before the trial court the
non-presentation of Police Inspector Palacios.
Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that
failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1),
Article II of R.A. No. 916574 does not necessarily
render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items
seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.
What is of utmost importance is the preservation
of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items, as these would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
We do not find any provision or statement in said
law or in any rule that will bring about the nonadmissibility of the confiscated and/or seized
drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if
there is non-compliance with said section, is not
of admissibility, but of weight evidentiary merit
or probative value to be given the evidence.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court


of Appeals decision and resolution dated March
18, 2008 and July 15, 2008, respectively, in CAG.R. CR No. 30061 are AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No. 033560, petitioner Gilbert Zalameda is
SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate penalty
of six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum,
to two (2) years and seven (7) months, as
maximum.
The CA decision finding the petitioner guilty of
violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 in
Criminal Case No. 03-3559 is AFFIRMED in all
respects.
SO ORDERED.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen