### Facts:
Paulo Jackson F. Polangcos was charged with violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for possession of a small quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The case began when on August 16, 2015, Polangcos was stopped by police in Marikina City for riding a motorcycle without a plate number. During the stop, a plastic sachet fell from his cap, leading to his arrest and subsequent charge. Polangcos pleaded not guilty, and after the failure to present defense evidence due to his absence, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina found him guilty, sentencing him to 12 years and one day to 20 years imprisonment along with a P300,000 fine. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision. Polangcos’ subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds of invalid warrantless arrest and improper preservation of the drug’s evidentiary value.
### Issues:
1. Whether the RTC and CA erred in convicting Polangcos based on evidence obtained through an invalid warrantless arrest.
2. Whether the prosecution preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug.
3. Whether the search conducted on Polangcos was a legal consented search.
### Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court granted Polangcos’ appeal, reversing the decisions of the RTC and CA, leading to his acquittal. The Court found that the search conducted was illegal as it did not precede a lawful arrest, given that Polangcos’ initial violations were punishable only by fines and did not warrant an arrest. Moreover, the Court found no legitimate waiver of Polangcos’ constitutional rights against illegal searches, rendering the seized evidence inadmissible. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the presumption of innocence and ruled that the prosecution failed to present evidence beyond reasonable doubt, mainly due to the inadmissibility of the seized drug.
### Doctrine:
– Evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure is inadmissible “for any purpose in any proceeding.”
– A valid arrest precedes a lawful search; without a valid arrest, any seized items during the unlawful search cannot be admitted as evidence.
– The presumption of innocence remains until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, relying on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence and not the weakness of the defense.
### Class Notes:
1. **Illegal Search and Seizure:** Evidence acquired from an unconstitutional search and seizure is excluded from any court proceeding.
2. **Presumption of Innocence:** An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a fundamental constitutional right.
3. **Chain of Custody:** The prosecution must demonstrate the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of seized illegal drugs for conviction in drug-related cases.
4. **Valid Arrest Prerequisite for Legal Search:** A search incidental to a lawful arrest requires the arrest to be lawful. Violations only punishable by fines do not justify an arrest, rendering subsequent searches illegal.
5. **Admissibility of Evidence:** The Supreme Court differentiates between questioning the validity of an arrest and the admissibility of evidence obtained from an arrest, affirming that evidence from an unlawful arrest/search is inadmissible.
### Historical Background:
This case underscores the judicial safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures embedded in the Philippine Constitution and law, reinforcing the principles aimed at protecting citizens’ rights from potential abuses during law enforcement operations. It underlines the courts’ role in scrutinizing the legality of police conduct and ensuring that convictions are based on admissible, reliable evidence. This case reflects the continuing evolution of legal interpretations regarding personal rights and state powers in the context of the Philippines’ broader efforts to combat illegal drugs while upholding constitutional rights.
Leave a Reply