View full case

GILBERT ZALAMEDA v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The case involves the review of a decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 30061, which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, Makati City. The RTC found petitioner Gilbert Zalameda guilty of violating Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and sentenced him to imprisonment for twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years. The trial court also found the petitioner and his co-accused, Albert Villaflor, guilty of violating Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165 and sentenced them to imprisonment for four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and seven (7) months.

The prosecution charged the petitioner with possession of a dangerous drug in violation of Section 11 and possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165. The petitioner and Villaflor pleaded not guilty to the charges. During pre-trial, the prosecution and defense stipulated certain facts, including the investigation report, request for laboratory examination, and physical science report. The defense reserved the right to present its exhibits at a later time.

The essential facts of the case are as follows: On September 14, 2003, SPO4 Mignelito Orbeta received a phone call from a concerned citizen regarding a "pot session" at a specific address in Barangay Tejeros, Makati City. Acting on this information, police officers were dispatched to verify the report. They found the house specified in the report with the door slightly open. One of the police officers peeped inside and saw the petitioner and Villaflor sniffing smoke. The police officers rushed inside the house, and the petitioner initially resisted their presence. The police frisked the petitioner and found a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substances in his right pocket. They also found drug paraphernalia and other sachets with traces of a white crystalline substance in the house.

The joint trial on the merits followed the pre-trial.

The petitioner, Gilbert Zalameda, and his co-accused Albert Villaflor were found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs). They were sentenced to imprisonment and fines. The petitioner appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA affirmed the decision. The petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that the items confiscated from him were inadmissible and that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the illegal drug. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the arrest and search conducted by the police were lawful, and that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crimes charged. The Supreme Court denied the petition, stating that a lawful arrest, search, and seizure took place, and the prosecution fully discharged its burden of proving the elements of the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt.

PO2 De Guzman testified that on January 28, 2004, they received a tip about an ongoing pot session at the house of the petitioner. They went to the petitioner's house and witnessed him and another person sniffing smoke. The petitioner and his companion were arrested and searched. From the petitioner's right pocket, PO2 De Guzman recovered a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substances, which tested positive for 0.03 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Various drug apparatus and paraphernalia were also found on top of the petitioner's bed. The petitioner was charged with possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia.

The petitioner argues that his arrest was illegal, therefore making the seized items inadmissible as evidence. However, he failed to question the legality of his arrest before his arraignment. The Court determined that the warrantless arrest conducted on the petitioner was valid because he was caught in flagrante delicto. The police officers responded to a tip about a pot session and observed the petitioner and his companion sniffing smoke from a slightly opened door. The police did not have enough time to secure a search warrant due to the urgency of the situation. The evidence showed that there was sufficient probable cause for the police officers to believe that the petitioner and his companion were committing a crime.

he accused, the petitioner, was searched. During this search, the police officers found a sachet containing a prohibited drug in the petitioner's possession. The petitioner was then arrested, along with his companion, Villaflor. Further search conducted on the petitioner also revealed drug paraphernalia. Both the prohibited drug and the drug paraphernalia were confiscated by the police officers. The petitioner and Villaflor were subsequently charged with the illegal possession of a prohibited drug and drug paraphernalia.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the warrantless arrest of the petitioner was valid.

  2. Whether the warrantless search and seizure conducted on the petitioner were lawful.

  3. Whether the petitioner's denial is credible and sufficient to overcome the positive identification and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

  4. Whether the petitioner's claim of extortion by police officers is substantiated.

  5. Whether the presentation of the informant is necessary for conviction in an illegal drugs case.

  6. Whether the prosecution has established the chain of custody of the seized items.

  7. Whether the confiscated items were properly identified and authenticated.

  8. Whether the seized items were connected to the petitioner.

  9. Whether there was strict compliance with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the custody of the seized items.

  10. Whether the non-presentation of the forensic chemist is fatal to the prosecution's case.

  11. Whether the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals on the petitioner for violating Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 is proper.

  12. Whether the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals on the petitioner for violating Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165 is proper.

RULING:

  1. The warrantless arrest of the petitioner was valid. The prosecution successfully established that the petitioner was arrested in flagrante delicto, as the police officers witnessed him and another individual sniffing smoke or shabu. When an accused is caught in flagrante delicto, the police officers are authorized and duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.

  2. The warrantless search and seizure conducted on the petitioner were lawful. The search and seizure were incident to a lawful arrest, as the petitioner was lawfully arrested in flagrante delicto. The seized crystalline substance, which later proved to be shabu, and the various drug paraphernalia found in plain view were admissible as evidence. The plain view doctrine applies when the law enforcement officer has a prior justification for an intrusion, the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent, and it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item observed may be evidence of a crime.

  3. The petitioner's denial is not credible and insufficient to overcome the positive identification and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The court views the defense of denial with disfavor as it can easily be concocted. The positive identification and straightforward testimonies of the prosecution witnesses hold more credibility than a mere denial by the accused.

  4. The petitioner's claim of extortion by police officers is untenable and unsupported by evidence. Allegations of frame-up and extortion in drug cases are viewed with disfavor and must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the petitioner failed to present any evidence to support his allegation and admitted that he did not know the police officers prior to his arrest.

  5. The presentation of the informant is not essential for conviction in an illegal drugs case. Informants are usually not presented in court to protect their identities and preserve their valuable service to the police. Their testimonies are considered corroborative and cumulative and are not indispensable for a successful prosecution.

  6. The prosecution has established the chain of custody of the seized items. The chain of custody rule requires evidence to support a finding that the seized matter is what the proponent claims it to be. In this case, the police immediately marked and brought the seized items to the police station, ensuring their integrity and evidentiary value.

  7. The confiscated items were properly identified and authenticated. The police officer who conducted the search and seizure positively identified the items in court and testified that he marked them with his initials or the initials of the accused to distinguish them. The markings were clearly shown to be present on the items presented as evidence in court.

  8. The seized items were connected to the petitioner. The police officer testified that he seized the items from the petitioner's possession and marked them immediately after the arrest. He also identified the items during trial as the same items he seized from the petitioner. The items were properly handled and turned over to the laboratory for examination, which confirmed the presence of dangerous drugs.

  9. The court held that there was substantial compliance with the required procedure on the custody and control of the seized items. The prosecution established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized items from the time they were discovered until they were brought for examination. The petitioner did not contest the admissibility of the seized items during trial and the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs were proven not to have been compromised.

  10. The court rejected the petitioner's claim that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist was fatal to the prosecution's case. The petitioner did not raise this issue before the trial court and agreed to dispense with the chemist's testimony during the pre-trial. The report of the chemist carries the presumption of regularity and her findings are conclusive in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

  11. The Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding the petitioner guilty of violating Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165.

  12. The Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals but MODIFIES the penalty imposed on the petitioner for violating Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165. The minimum imprisonment is increased to six (6) months and one (1) day.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In flagrante delicto arrest requires an overt act indicating the commission or attempt to commit a crime in the presence or view of the arresting officer.

  • A warrantless arrest is valid when an accused is caught in flagrante delicto.

  • A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything that may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.

  • The plain view doctrine allows the seizure of objects in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position from which the view is made, when the discovery of the evidence is inadvertent, and it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item observed may be evidence of a crime.

  • The defense of denial is viewed with disfavor and must be supported by evidence. Positive identification and straightforward testimonies of prosecution witnesses hold more credibility.

  • Allegations of frame-up and extortion in drug cases must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

  • Informants in illegal drugs cases are usually not presented in court to protect their identities. Their testimonies are considered corroborative and cumulative, not essential for conviction.

  • The chain of custody rule requires evidence to support the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items. Immediate marking and preservation of the seized items are necessary to establish the chain of custody.

  • It is essential to properly identify and authenticate confiscated items to establish their admissibility as evidence.

  • The testimony of the police officer who conducted the search and seizure is crucial in establishing the connection between the accused and the confiscated items.

  • Proper marking and handling of seized items is important to maintain their chain of custody and preserve their evidentiary value.

  • Failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible. What is important is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

  • Non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not render the seized drugs inadmissible in evidence. The admissibility of evidence depends on relevance and is subject to the evidentiary weight given by the court.

  • The weight given to evidence depends on the circumstances of each case.

  • The penalty imposed on the accused for violating Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 was affirmed, without any modifications.

  • The penalty imposed on the accused for violating Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165 was modified by increasing the minimum imprisonment to six (6) months and one (1) day, as provided by law.