People vs Sanchez

Facts:Sanchez was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in the Information, dated March 20, 2003, filed before the RTC and docketed as Criminal Case No.
10745-03.
On March 19, 2003, acting on the information that Jacinta Marciano, aka "Intang," was selling drugs to tricycle drivers, SPO1
Elmer Amposta, together with CSU Edmundo Hernandez, CSU Jose Tagle, Jr., and CSU Samuel Monzon, was dispatched to
Barangay Alapan 1-B, Imus, Cavite to conduct an operation.
While at the place, the group waited for a tricycle going to, and coming from, the house of Jacinta. After a few minutes, they
spotted a tricycle carrying Rizaldy Sanchez coming out of the house. The group chased the tricycle. After catching up with it, they
requested Rizaldy to alight. It was then that they noticed Rizaldy holding a match box.
SPO1 Amposta asked Rizaldy if he could see the contents of the match box. Rizaldy agreed. While examining it, SPO1 Amposta
found a small transparent plastic sachet which contained a white crystalline substance. Suspecting that the substance was a
regulated drug, the group accosted Rizaldy and the tricycle driver. The group brought the two to the police station.
Sanchez denied the accusation against him and presented a different version of the events that transpired in the afternoon of March
19, 2003.
However, RTC and CA  finding that Sanchez was caught in flagrante delicto,in actual possession of shabu. It stated that the police
operatives had reasonable ground to believe that Sanchez was in possession of the said dangerous drug and such suspicion was
confirmed when the match box Sanchez was carrying was found to contain shabu.
ISSUES: Bewailing his conviction, Sanchez filed the present petition for "certiorari"under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and
anchored on the following
GROUNDS:1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT HELD THAT ACCUSED WAS
CAUGHT IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO, HENCE,A SEARCH WARRANT WAS NO LONGER NECESSARY; AND
2. THE HONORABLE COURT OFAPPEALS, WITH DUE RESPECT, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT HELD THAT NON-COMPLIANCE WITH
SECTION 21, PARAGRAPH 1, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY RENDER THE
SEIZED ITEMS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.
HELD: Preliminarily, the Court notes that this petition suffers from procedural infirmity. Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, the proper remedy to question the CA judgment,final order or resolution, as in the present case, is a petition for review
on certiorari, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. 16By filing a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65, Sanchez therefore clearly availed himself of the wrong remedy.
Be that as it may, the Court, in several cases before, had treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review under Rule 45, in
accordance with the liberal spirit and in the interest of substantial justice, particularly (1) if the petition was filed within the
reglementary period for filing a petition for review; (2) errors of judgment are averred; and (3) there is sufficient reason to justify
the relaxation of the rules. The case at bench satisfies all the above requisites and, hence, there is ample justification to treat this
petition for certiorari as a petition for review. Besides, it is axiomatic that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations
of the complaint or petition and the character of the relief sought. Here, stripped of allegations of "grave abuse of discretion," the
petition actually avers errors of judgment rather than of jurisdiction, which are the appropriate subjects of a petition for review on
certiorari.
In sustaining the conviction of Sanchez, the CA ratiocinated that this was a clear case of an in flagrante delicto arrest under
paragraph (a) Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. In this regard, the CA wrote:
In the case at Bar, the acquisition of the regulated drug by the police officers qualifies as a valid search following a lawful
operation by the police officers. The law enforcers acted on the directive of their superior based on an information that the owner
of the residence where Sanchez came from was a notorious drug dealer. As Sanchez was seen leaving the said residence, the law
enforcers had probable cause to stop Sanchez on the road since there was already a tip that illegal drug-related activities were
perpetrated in the place where he came from and seeing a match box held on one hand, the police officers’ action were justified to
inspect the same. The search therefore, is a sound basis for the lawful seizure of the confiscated drug, arrest and conviction of
Sanchez.
In the same vein, there could be no valid "stop-and-frisk" search in the case at bench. Elucidating on what constitutes "stop-and-
frisk" operation and how it is to be carried out, the Court in People v. Chua wrote:
A stop and frisk was defined as the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s)
or contraband. The police officer should properly introduce himself and make initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person who
manifests unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the latter’s outer clothing for possibly concealed weapons. The
apprehending police officer must have a genuine reason, in accordance with the police officer’s experience and the surrounding
conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to be held has weapons (or contraband) concealed about him. It should therefore
be emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the arrest for this principle to apply.
The Court does not find the totality of the circumstances described by SPO1 Amposta as sufficient to incite a reasonable suspicion
that would justify a stop-and-frisk search on Sanchez. Coming out from the house of a drug pusher and boarding a tricycle,
without more, were innocuous movements, and by themselves alone could not give rise in the mind of an experienced and prudent
police officer of any belief that hehad shabu in his possession, or that he was probably committing a crime in the presence of the
officer. There was even no allegation that Sanchez left the house of the drug dealer in haste or that he acted in any other
suspicious manner. There was no showing either that he tried toevade or outmaneuver his pursuers or that he attempted to flee
when the police officers approached him. Truly, his acts and the surrounding circumstances could not have engendered any
reasonable suspicion on the part of the police officers that a criminal activity had taken place or was afoot.
The OSG characterizes the seizure of the subject shabu from Sanchez as seizure of evidence in plain view. The Court disagrees.
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view
are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (1)
the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can
view a particular area; (2) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (3) it is immediately apparent to the
officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
Measured against the foregoing standards, it is readily apparent that the seizure of the subject shabu does notfall within the plain
view exception. First, there was no valid intrusion. As already discussed, Sanchez was illegally arrested. Second, subject shabu
was not inadvertently discovered, and third, it was not plainly exposed to sight. Here, the subject shabu was allegedly inside a
match box being thenheld by Sanchez and was not readily apparent or transparent to the police officers. In fact, SPO1 Amposta
had to demand from Sanchez the possession of the match box in order for him to open it and examine its content. The shabu was
not in plain view and its seizure without the requisite search warrant is in violation of the law and the Constitution. In the light of
the foregoing, there being no lawful warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure, the shabu purportedly seized from
Sanchez is inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. As the confiscated shabu is the very
corpus delicti of the crime charged, the accused must be acquitted and exonerated from the criminal charge of violation of Section
11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Furthermore, the Court entertains doubts whether the shabu allegedly seized from Sanchez was the very same item presented
during the trial of this case. The Court notes that there wereseveral lapses in the law enforcers’ handling of the seized item which,
when taken collectively, render the standards of chain of custody seriously breached.\
Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. The
function of the chain of custody requirement is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved,
so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. Thus, the chain of custody requirement has a
two-fold purpose: (1) the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, and (2) the removal of
unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence.
 A reading of the Certification, dated March 20, 2003, issued by Forensic Chemist Salud Rosales shows that a certain PO I
Edgardo Nario submitted the specimen to the NBI for laboratory examination, but this piece of evidence does not establish the
identity of the police investigator to whom SPO 1 Amposta and his group turned over the seized shabu. The identities of the
person who received the specimen at the NBI laboratory and the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the seized
marijuana after it was chemically analyzed pending its presentation in court were also not disclosed which give doubt to the
credibility of the chain of custody.
Based on the above circumstances sanchez is acquitted by the SC.