View full case

LENIZA REYES Y CAPISTRANO v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Reyes was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on November 6, 2012, Reyes matched the description of a woman who bought shabu and smelled like liquor. Police Officer 1 (PO1) Monteras approached her and asked if she bought shabu. Reyes responded by questioning the legality of the search and turned her back, pulled out a small plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. PO1 Monteras confiscated the sachet which later tested positive for 0.04 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Reyes denied the charges and claimed that the incident happened on November 5, 2012. She alleged that she was extorted by the police officers and was forced to give them money. Despite her denial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her to imprisonment and imposed a fine. Reyes appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed her conviction but corrected the quantity of shabu to 0.04 gram. Reyes now seeks the reversal of her conviction.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether a valid warrantless arrest took place.

  2. Whether the evidence obtained from the warrantless arrest should be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree.

  3. Whether the arrest of the accused was lawful.

  4. Whether the search conducted on the accused was valid.

  5. Whether the chain of custody of the seized items was properly followed.

  6. Whether there was a valid and legal chain of custody of the seized drugs as required by law.

  7. Whether the non-compliance with the chain of custody procedure justifies the acquittal of the accused.

RULING:

  1. The court held that no valid warrantless arrest took place. The accused did not exhibit an overt act indicating that she had just committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. The arresting officers had no personal knowledge of any offense committed by the accused. The mere description of the accused as a woman with a tattoo on her left arm was not sufficient to establish probable cause for her arrest.

  2. Since the warrantless arrest was invalid, the evidence obtained from it should be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree. The evidence was obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure, which is in violation of the constitutional provision protecting the people from unreasonable searches and seizures.

  3. No, the arrest of the accused was not lawful. The court found that the arrest lacked legal basis as the accused did not act suspiciously or do anything wrong except smelling of liquor. The arresting officer relied solely on unverified tips from strangers, which is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest.

  4. No, the search conducted on the accused was not valid. The court found the prosecution's version of events regarding the seizure of the illegal drugs to be lacking in credence. The accused voluntarily showing the drugs without any impelling circumstance prompting her to do so is contrary to ordinary human experience. Additionally, there were inconsistencies in the claim that the accused consented to the search, which further cast doubt on the credibility of the police officers who testified against the accused.

  5. The court found that the police officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule under RA 9165. The required personalities were not present during the marking and inventory of the seized items, and no justifications were provided for their absence. As a result, the court held that the chain of custody was not properly followed.

  6. The court held that there was no valid and legal chain of custody of the seized drugs. The police officers failed to strictly comply with the procedure outlined in Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The officers did not immediately turn over the drugs to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination and failed to record the identity of the physical evidence in the chain of custody.

  7. The court ruled that the non-compliance with the chain of custody procedure justified the acquittal of the accused. It is well-settled that unjustified non-compliance with the chain of custody procedure would result in the acquittal of the accused.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, allowing the reviewing tribunal to correct errors in the appealed judgment, whether assigned or unassigned.

  • A search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant based on probable cause, otherwise it becomes unreasonable and the evidence obtained becomes inadmissible.

  • One of the recognized exceptions to the need for a warrant before a search can be conducted is a search incidental to a lawful arrest.

  • In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5(a) and (b) of Rule 113, there must be an overt act indicating the commission of a crime and the arresting officer must have personal knowledge of the fact of the offense.

  • Evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure is considered tainted and should be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree.

  • A warrantless arrest must have a legal basis and cannot be justified solely based on unverified tips from strangers.

  • A search conducted without the proper consent of the accused is invalid, and clear and positive proof of consent is required.

  • The chain of custody of seized items must be strictly followed, and any deviations from the prescribed procedure may render the seized items inadmissible as evidence.

  • Compliance with the chain of custody procedure, as provided under Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is crucial in drug-related cases. Failure to strictly comply can result in the acquittal of the accused.

  • The chain of custody procedure requires the immediate turnover of seized drugs to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination and the proper recording of the identity of the physical evidence in the chain of custody.