PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REY BAIÑO Y MADERAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Baiño

The Case

This is People versus Baiño, a criminal appeal from a conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accused, Rey Baiño, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Gingoog City of possessing nineteen heat sealed sachets of shabu, and he asks the Supreme Court to overturn that conviction on three grounds: that his arrest was illegal, that the evidence taken from him was therefore inadmissible, and that the police failed to observe the required procedure for the custody of seized drugs. The case matters because it gathers into one decision the rules on waiver of objections to an illegal arrest, the reach of a search warrant over the body of the person named in it, and the doctrine of substantial compliance with the chain of custody requirement.

Procedural History

Rey Baiño was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, of Gingoog City by an Information dated July 7, 2010, for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165. He pleaded not guilty at his arraignment on October 20, 2010. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its Judgment on January 9, 2013, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to imprisonment of thirteen years as minimum to fifteen years as maximum, and imposing a fine of three hundred thousand pesos. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising the three issues of illegal arrest, inadmissibility of the evidence, and non-compliance with Section 21 of the law.

Facts

On July 2, 2010, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, of Medina, Misamis Oriental issued a search warrant commanding peace officers to search the residence of Wiwin Baiño at Barangay 20, road to Fish Landing, Gingoog City, for illegal drugs and proceeds of their sale. On July 6, 2010, at about half past one in the afternoon, SPO3 Henry Legaspi and his team served the warrant. When the team entered the house, the accused saw them and ran to one of the rooms. SPO3 Legaspi and PO2 Gundaya chased and caught him, handcuffed him, and brought him to the sala.

Barangay Captain Mark Kho and Rita Endrina, a newspaper publication owner, were invited as witnesses. They were present when the warrant was read to the accused, and they frisked the police officers to rule out the planting of evidence. The search began only after the witnesses were satisfied that the officers carried nothing. SPO3 Legaspi then instructed the accused to pull the canister out of his pants, and the accused surrendered a canister containing nineteen sachets of suspected shabu. The officers also seized several bills from a room in the house. An inventory was conducted, and a Certification was signed by the accused, the media representative, and the Barangay Captain. The items were marked with the initials of SPO3 Legaspi, and they were brought to the police station.

Because the only crime laboratory was in Cagayan de Oro City, the examination was done the next day. SPO3 Legaspi secured the items in his locker, and before going to the laboratory he checked that they were the same items taken during the operation. The examination yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused, for his part, testified that the police had manipulated his hand to make it appear that the canister came from him, and that the money was taken from his wallet and pocket. The trial court believed the prosecution and convicted him.

Issues

• Whether or not the arrest of the accused was legal.
• Whether or not the evidence obtained from him was admissible.
• Whether or not the requirement of Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165 was duly observed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165, which the Court quotes in full on the custody and disposition of seized drugs, provides:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

This provision supplies the standard against which the police handling of the seized drugs is measured, and its final clause on justifiable grounds is the textual basis for the Court's ruling of substantial compliance.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the accused never questioned the legality of his arrest before his arraignment, nor did he move to quash the Information. Such inaction is a waiver of the right to raise the validity of the arrest on appeal. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in People versus Racho:

The records show that appellant never objected to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. In fact, this is the first time that he raises the issue. Considering this lapse, coupled with his active participation in the trial of the case, we must abide with jurisprudence which dictates that appellant, having voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, is deemed to have waived his right to question the validity of his arrest, thus curing whatever defect may have attended his arrest. The legality of the arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over his person. Appellant's warrantless arrest therefore cannot, in itself, be the basis of his acquittal.

On the second issue, the Court held the evidence admissible. It rejected the argument that a warrant to search the house cannot reach the body of the person named in it. The warrant commanded the officers to search the premises and seize the described items on a finding of probable cause that the accused had them in his possession, and the term possession is broad enough to embrace constructive possession. A search on the person named in the warrant may therefore be conducted to determine his actual possession of the drugs. The Court added that the accused's attempt to flee justified the chase and the arrest, and that the body search, even as a consequence of the arrest, was valid, so the proceeds were admissible.

On the third issue, the Court held that Section 21 was substantially complied with. There was an inventory and a photograph of the seized items and of the search, and a media representative and a local official were present. The inconsistencies on where the marking was made were not material. Only one person, SPO3 Legaspi, had custody of the items from confiscation to laboratory examination, he secured them in his locker, and he identified them in court. The Court quoted People versus Castro on the presumption of integrity:

…the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with…

The accused failed to discharge the burden of showing tampering. The Court also quoted People versus Langcua:

…that non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not necessarily fatal. Its non-compliance will not automatically render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. We recognize that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 may not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence.

Finally, the Court held that all the elements of illegal possession were present: the accused possessed an item identified as a prohibited drug, the possession was not authorized by law, and he freely and consciously possessed it.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain three rules. First, the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, and an accused who fails to object before arraignment and actively participates in the trial is deemed to have waived the objection. Second, a search warrant directed at a named person's premises and effects may justify a search of his person, because the term possession embraces constructive possession, and flight at the sight of the authorities justifies pursuit and arrest. Third, non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165 is not automatically fatal; what is essential is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, and the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to identification in court.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed and the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court convicting Rey Baiño of illegal possession of dangerous drugs was affirmed.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person, and that what preserves a drug conviction is the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, not perfect ritual. Examiners use this case for the waiver of objections to an illegal arrest and for substantial compliance with the chain of custody under Section 21.