GR 199042; (November, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 199042 November 17, 2014
DANILO VILLANUEVA y ALCARAZ, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Danilo Villanueva was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for having in his possession 0.63 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) on June 15, 2004 in Caloocan City. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimonies of four police officers, was that a complaint was filed against Villanueva for allegedly shooting Brian Resco. Police officers, together with Resco, proceeded to Villanueva’s house, informed him of the complaint, and invited him to the police station. At the station, during a body search, a plastic sachet of shabu was recovered from the left pocket of his pants. The defense’s version was that Villanueva was at home watching TV when police officers invited him to the station, where he was frisked and detained. The Regional Trial Court convicted Villanueva. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC ruling. Villanueva filed a petition, arguing the illegality of his warrantless arrest and search, and lapses in the handling of the confiscated drug.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the petitioner’s conviction for violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 despite the illegality of the arrest and the lapses on the part of the police officers in the handling of the confiscated drug.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the assailed CA Decision and Resolution, and acquitted petitioner Danilo Villanueva.
The Court ruled that while the petitioner was estopped from questioning the legality of his warrantless arrest because he never objected to it before arraignment and actively participated in the trial, he was not deemed to have waived his right to contest the legality of the warrantless search. The warrantless search conducted did not fall under any of the recognized exceptions: it was not a search of a moving vehicle, a seizure in plain view, a customs search, a consented search, a stop-and-frisk, a search incidental to a lawful arrest, or based on exigent circumstances. The testimony indicated the police officer “ordered” him to bring out the contents of his pocket, which did not constitute clear, convincing, and voluntary consent. Consequently, the seized shabu was obtained through an unlawful search and was inadmissible as evidence under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. Without the seized item, the conviction could not be sustained. The Court found no more reason to discuss the alleged lapses in the handling of the confiscated drug.