G.R. No. 242017. October 06, 2021.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JR S. MACARONA AND MELOY M. MACARONA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

FACTS

On January 2, 2015, a confidential informant notified Police Officer 2 Leo Michael T. Sapalicio that accused-appellants JR S. Macarona and Meloy M. Macarona were about to transport illegal drugs from Davao City to Lupon, Davao Oriental aboard a white Mitsubishi L300 van. A checkpoint was set up. At 4:00 p.m., Police Officer 1 Elizalde Ronquillo flagged down the van. When the appellants rolled down the windows, PO1 Ronquillo saw a sachet containing white crystalline substance in the driver’s visor. He informed PO2 Sapalicio, who then called barangay officials to witness a search of the vehicle. The search yielded the sachet from the visor, another small sachet from the dashboard cover, and two big sachets from the driver’s seat cover. The seized items, weighing 92.2303 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, were marked, turned over for examination, and found positive for the dangerous drug. The Macaronas denied knowledge of the drugs, claiming Meloy was merely hired to drive the van and JR was a companion. They were charged with violation of Section 5 (Transportation of Dangerous Drugs) of Republic Act No. 9165. The Regional Trial Court found them guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellants appealed, contending the warrantless search was illegal as it was based solely on a tip, and that the chain of custody rule was not complied with.

ISSUE

Whether or not accused-appellants JR S. Macarona and Meloy M. Macarona are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of transporting dangerous drugs, which subsumes the issue of whether the warrantless search and seizure conducted by the apprehending officers were valid.

RULING

The appeal is GRANTED. The accused-appellants are ACQUITTED. The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure were invalid. Probable cause for a warrantless search cannot be based exclusively on an initial tip from a confidential informant. It must be premised on a myriad of suspicious circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious person to believe that a crime has been committed and the item sought is in the possession of the accused. Here, the search was conducted solely on the basis of the informant’s tip without any independent corroborative acts or observable suspicious behavior from the appellants at the checkpoint. The alleged contraband seized pursuant to this illegal warrantless search is inadmissible in evidence. Consequently, the corpus delicti of the crime was not established. In the absence of the corpus delicti, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, warranting their acquittal.