G.R. No. 204589 November 19, 2014
RIZALDY SANCHEZ y CAJILI, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Rizaldy Sanchez y Cajili was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for having in his possession 0.1017 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”). The prosecution’s version, based on the testimony of SPO1 Elmer Amposta, was that on March 19, 2003, police operatives, acting on information that a certain Jacinta Marciano was selling drugs, were dispatched to Barangay Alapan 1-B, Imus, Cavite. They saw a tricycle carrying Sanchez coming out of Marciano’s house. They chased and stopped the tricycle, noticed Sanchez holding a matchbox, and asked to see its contents. Inside, they found a small transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. Sanchez was accosted and brought to the police station. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was shabu. Sanchez denied the accusation, testifying that he and a tricycle driver were merely blocked by armed men while on their way home after transporting a passenger, were frisked without explanation, and were arrested despite his protests. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Sanchez, sentencing him to imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, ruling that the warrantless arrest and search were valid as he was caught in flagrante delicto and that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not fatal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the warrantless arrest and search of Sanchez were valid.
2. Whether the non-compliance with Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (regarding inventory and photograph of seized items) renders the seized item inadmissible and creates reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED the decisions of the CA and RTC, and ACQUITTED petitioner Rizaldy Sanchez y Cajili on reasonable doubt.
1. On the validity of the warrantless arrest and search: The Court ruled that the warrantless arrest and search were invalid. For a valid in flagrante delicto arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, the person must be committing, actually committing, or attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer. The police officers had no personal knowledge that Sanchez had just committed a crime. Merely seeing him come out of a suspected drug dealer’s house, based on an unverified tip, and holding a matchbox did not constitute overt acts indicating a crime was being committed. The search of the matchbox was not incidental to a lawful arrest, as the arrest itself was unlawful. The “plain view” doctrine was also inapplicable because the police had no prior justification for an intrusion; they merely stopped the tricycle on suspicion.
2. On the non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 : The Court found that the police officers failed to comply with the mandatory procedures under Section 21. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for this non-compliance. The required physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official were not done. This failure to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item created reasonable doubt as to its identity. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, the evidence obtained from the invalid warrantless search was inadmissible. Without the shabu as evidence, Sanchez’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ordered his immediate release unless held for another lawful cause.