People vs. Cariño

An invalid warrantless arrest renders all evidence subsequently seized inadmissible under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. Additionally, the prosecution’s failure to present the mandatory witnesses required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 during the inventory of seized drugs, without a justifiable explanation, breaks the chain of custody and precludes conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

On July 24, 2009, SPO2 Eduardo Navarro arrested Dexter Valencia for possession of illegal drugs. Valencia stated that he intended to consume shabu inside Eduardo Cariño’s house on MacArthur Highway, Tarlac City. On July 30, 2009, SPO2 Navarro and his team conducted a surveillance operation around Cariño’s house. SPO2 Navarro observed Cariño purchase four sachets of shabu from a neighbor and return home. A team member, Jay Mallari, signaled that a “pot session” was taking place inside. SPO2 Navarro then approached Cariño outside the house, informed him he was under arrest for delivering shabu and maintaining a drug den, and immediately thereafter stooped to look inside the house, where he saw a person heating foil and another holding a tooter. The team entered and seized drug paraphernalia and sachets of suspected shabu. Cariño was charged with illegal sale, maintenance of a drug den, and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

• The Triggering Arrest of Valencia: On July 24, 2009, SPO2 Navarro arrested Dexter Valencia for illegal possession of shabu. During interrogation, Valencia stated that he had been on his way to appellant Eduardo Cariño’s house to consume shabu there, as the house was used for drug sessions. SPO2 Navarro thereafter visited Cariño’s house to warn him about his illegal activities.

• Surveillance Operation: On July 30, 2009, at about 8:30 a.m., SPO2 Navarro and his team—including SPO2 Jorge Andasan, Jr. and Jay Mallari—conducted a surveillance operation around Cariño’s house on MacArthur Highway, Block 3, San Nicolas, Tarlac City. SPO2 Navarro positioned himself at the highway and observed three persons later identified as Noel Manianglung, Alma Bucao, and Milagros Soliman inside the house.

• Observed Transaction and the Signal: SPO2 Navarro saw Cariño leave his house, walk to the house of a certain Tikong Dulay, hand over money, and receive four sachets of shabu. Cariño returned home. SPO2 Navarro signaled Mallari to move closer. Minutes later, Mallari gave a signal that a “pot session” was taking place inside. Cariño came out of his house again.

• Warrantless Arrest and Entry: SPO2 Navarro approached Cariño, informed him he was being arrested for delivering shabu and maintaining a drug den, and arrested him. Immediately after the arrest, SPO2 Navarro stooped down and saw through an opening that Manianglung was heating foil with a lighter and a woman was using a rolled aluminum foil as a tooter. The team then entered the house.

• Seizure and Inventory: On a table inside, officers found one opened small plastic sachet (marked ETN-1), two heat-sealed sachets containing white crystalline substance (ETN-2 and ETN-3), seven aluminum foils inside a cigarette pack (ETN-4), and three disposable lighters (ETN-5, ETN-6, ETN-7). Two additional sachets were recovered from Manianglung’s cellphone. At the scene, SPO2 Navarro prepared a receipt of property seized, which was signed by Barangay Chairman Edizon Dizon and DOJ representative Owen Policarpio. Photographs were taken. Cariño refused to sign the inventory. No media representative was present; SPO2 Navarro later testified that no media personnel were available at the time. The seized items were brought to the police station; a request for laboratory examination was prepared. At around 1:45 p.m. that day, SPO2 Navarro delivered the items to the crime laboratory, where Forensic Chemist PSI Jebie Timario received them. PSI Timario’s examination confirmed that the contents of ETN-2, ETN-3, and the two sachets from Manianglung’s phone were methamphetamine hydrochloride, each weighing 0.02 gram.

• Defense Version: Cariño testified that he was at home nursing a foot injury. He had three visitors—Bucao, Soliman, and Manianglung. He went to the backyard to get calamansi thorns when SPO2 Navarro’s team approached and asked to enter. He asked if they had a search warrant; when they said no, he allowed them inside because they were law enforcers. Nothing was found on his person. Two sachets were found inside Manianglung’s cellphone, and Manianglung pointed to Cariño when asked about them. Cariño denied selling or pushing drugs but admitted he was a drug user.

• RTC Findings: The RTC acquitted Cariño of illegal sale because the police conducted only surveillance, not a buy-bust operation. It credited the prosecution’s evidence that Cariño consented to the use of his house for drug sessions and sexual activities for minimal fees, and that SPO2 Navarro’s testimony—corroborated by Cariño’s admission—established the maintenance of a drug den. It found that the two sachets on the table were in Cariño’s constructive possession, satisfying the elements of illegal possession. The CA affirmed, ruling that the seized items were admissible under the plain view doctrine and that the chain of custody was substantially observed despite the absence of a media representative.

• Validity of Warrantless Arrest and Seizure (Drug Den Charge): Whether the warrantless arrest and the subsequent search and seizure inside appellant’s house were valid under the plain view doctrine and Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.

• Proof of Maintenance of a Drug Den: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant maintained his house as a drug den, considering the admissibility and probative value of the evidence of the house’s general reputation.

• Chain of Custody (Illegal Possession Charge): Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs in compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules, despite the absence of a media representative during the inventory.

• Validity of Warrantless Arrest and Seizure: The warrantless arrest was invalid. The arresting officer, SPO2 Navarro, did not personally witness any overt act constituting a crime. He testified that from his position he could not see what was happening inside the house, and the alleged observer, Mallari, was never presented as a witness. The requirements of a valid in flagrante delicto arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113—an overt act within the view of the arresting officer and probable cause based on personal knowledge—were not met. SPO2 Navarro arrested appellant before he purportedly saw drug use inside the house; probable cause cannot arise after the arrest. The plain view doctrine was inapplicable because there was no valid prior intrusion: the arrest itself was unlawful. Consequently, all evidence obtained from the subsequent search of the house was inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.

• Proof of Maintenance of a Drug Den: Even setting aside the illegal search, the prosecution failed to prove an essential element—that the place was a drug den. The general reputation of the house as a drug den was sought to be established solely through SPO2 Navarro’s testimony about what Dexter Valencia told him after Valencia’s arrest. That statement was hearsay and had no probative value, irrespective of the lack of objection from the defense. Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given credence and cannot support a criminal conviction, as it violates the constitutional right to confront witnesses. Valencia was never presented, and no affidavit or written statement from him was offered.

• Chain of Custody: The prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR. At the time of the inventory and photography, no media representative was present. The law requires the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. The mere statement of SPO2 Navarro that no media personnel was available, without any showing of earnest efforts to secure one, does not constitute a justifiable ground for noncompliance. The seizure occurred at 8:30 a.m. after a planned surveillance operation; the officers had ample opportunity to secure the required witnesses. Moreover, the sworn affidavits of the arresting officers did not detail compliance or offer any justification for the procedural lapse, contrary to the mandatory policy laid down in People v. Lim. Because the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were not preserved, the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs could not be sustained.

• Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine — Evidence obtained as a direct or indirect result of an illegal act (such as an invalid warrantless arrest) is inadmissible. The primary illegally obtained evidence taints all derivative evidence. Applied here, the invalid arrest of appellant rendered all items subsequently seized from his house inadmissible.

• Plain View Doctrine (Requisites) — For evidence in plain view to be admissible without a warrant, three requisites must concur: (a) the officer must have a prior justification for an intrusion or be lawfully in a position to view the area; (b) the discovery of the evidence must be inadvertent; and (c) the incriminating character of the object must be immediately apparent. Here, the prior intrusion (the warrantless arrest) was illegal, defeating the doctrine.

• Probable Cause for Warrantless Arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 — A valid warrantless arrest under the in flagrante delicto rule requires (a) an overt act indicating the person has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime, and (b) that such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Probable cause must exist before the arrest; it cannot be supplied by events occurring after.

• Hearsay Evidence: Admissibility vs. Probative Value — Hearsay evidence, even if not objected to, lacks probative value and cannot be given credence. The admission of hearsay does not convert it into proof of the truth asserted. Allowing hearsay to support a criminal conviction violates the constitutional right to confront witnesses.

• Elements of Maintenance of a Drug Den under Section 6, R.A. No. 9165 — The prosecution must prove (a) the existence of a drug den (a place where dangerous drugs are administered, used, stored, sold, or distributed) and (b) that the accused maintained the place. General reputation may be proved, but the proof must be admissible and not based on hearsay.

• Chain of Custody under Section 21, R.A. No. 9165 (prior to R.A. No. 10640) — The apprehending team must immediately after seizure conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of (1) the accused or his representative/counsel, (2) a media representative, (3) a DOJ representative, and (4) any elected public official. Noncompliance requires the prosecution to recognize the lapse and explain justifiable grounds, and to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The saving clause is inapplicable when the prosecution offers no justifiable explanation for the absence of a mandatory witness.

• Mandatory Policy in Drug Cases (People v. Lim) — Sworn statements or affidavits of apprehending officers must state their compliance with Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR. In case of non-observance, they must explicitly state the justification and the steps taken to preserve the integrity of the evidence. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the case for lack of probable cause.

• “The questionable and invalid arrest thus makes the subsequent search in the house of appellant also invalid, the exclusionary rule or the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree applies. … The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ is at least once removed from the illegally seized evidence, but it is equally inadmissible.”

• “Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not cannot be given credence for it has no probative value.”

• “In criminal cases, the admission of hearsay evidence would be a violation of the constitutional provision that the accused shall enjoy the right to confront the witnesses testifying against him and to cross-examine them. A conviction based alone on proof that violates the constitutional right of an accused is a nullity …”

• “The prosecution failed to give any justifiable ground for the noncompliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. … SPO2 Navarro’s bare allegation, without any substantiation, that no media representative was available at the time of the inventory cannot ipso facto excuse the noncompliance.”

• People v. Galicia, G.R. No. 218402, February 14, 2018 — Cited for the elements of maintenance of a drug den under Section 6, R.A. No. 9165.

• Miclat, Jr. v. People, 672 Phil. 191 (2011) — Enumerated the requisites of the plain view doctrine, applied to test the validity of the warrantless search.

• Macad v. People, G.R. No. 227366, August 1, 2018 — Defined the elements of a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113, requiring an overt act within the view of the arresting officer.

• People v. Fatallo, G.R. No. 218805, November 7, 2018 — Expounded on the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, holding that all derivative evidence from an illegal arrest is inadmissible.

• People v. Rom, 727 Phil. 587 (2014) — Stated that the existence of a drug den may be established by proof of general reputation among police officers, but such proof must be admissible.

• People v. Parungao, 332 Phil. 917 (1996) — Established the principle that hearsay evidence has no probative value even if not objected to.

• Republic v. Galeno, 803 Phil. 742 (2017) — Reiterated that hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given credence.

• People v. Mamalias, 385 Phil. 499 (2000) — Held that admitting hearsay in a criminal case violates the right to confrontation, rendering the conviction void.

• People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212 (2015) — Clarified the mandatory presence of all required witnesses under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 prior to its amendment.

• People v. Carlit, G.R. No. 227309, August 16, 2017 — Stressed that the saving clause applies only when the prosecution acknowledges lapses and provides justifiable grounds, and proves the integrity of the evidence.

• People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018 — Established the mandatory policy requiring apprehending officers to state in their affidavits their compliance with Section 21(1) or the justifications for noncompliance.

• Section 6, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Maintenance of a Drug Den. The elements were analyzed; the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a drug den through admissible evidence.

• Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. The conviction was set aside due to the broken chain of custody.

• Section 21(1), R.A. No. 9165 and Section 21(a), IRR — Chain of custody requirements. The absence of a media representative without justifiable ground was fatal to the prosecution’s case.

• Section 5(a), Rule 113, Rules of Court — Arrest without warrant; when lawful. The court found no probable cause based on the arresting officer’s personal knowledge.

• Article III, Section 14(2), 1987 Constitution — Right to confront witnesses. Violated by the admission of hearsay testimony to prove an essential element.

Chief Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (Chairperson), Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, and Justice Rosmari D. Carandang concurred. Justice Francis H. Jardeleza was on official business.

N/A — The decision was unanimous among the participating justices.