GREGORIO TELEN y ICHON vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES|||
G.R. No. 228107, October 9, 2019
J. Leonen
At about 2:30 p.m., PO3 Mazo was at Petron Gasoline Station, waiting for his turn to gas up his motorcycle. He was in line behind Telen who was then putting gasoline in his own motorcycle. After filling up his motorcycle’s gas tank, Telen drew out his wallet causing his shirt to be pulled up, revealing a part of his waist. PO3 Mazo saw a metal part of what appeared to be a hand grenade tucked in Telen’s right waistband. PO3 Mazo tailed Telen. At around 5:30 p.m., PO3 Mazo approached Telen, patted his right waist. He introduced himself as a police officer then pulled out the metal object from Telen’s waist and confirmed that it was indeed a hand grenade. PO3 Mazo arrested Telen and apprised him of his constitutional rights. He then frisked Telen and recovered three (3) small plastic sachets of white crystalline substance from him. Telen was charged with the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. RTC ruled in favor of the People and CA affirmed.
REMEDIAL LAW – Criminal Procedure – Appeal (R122, R125, R45)
W/N petitioner availed the wrong remedy (R45) since petitioner effectively raises questions of fact requiring an examination of evidence –
No Although SC generally entertains questions of law only in a petition for review on certiorari as it is not a trier of facts, SC is not precluded from reviewing the factual findings of lower courts in criminal cases. Anchored on an accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, this Court is mindful of its duty to closely examine the records, including the pieces of evidence presented to determine the accused’s guilt with moral certainty. For this reason, the entire records of a criminal case are thrown wide open for this Court’s review.
POLITICAL LAW – Stop and Frisk Rule (Art III, S2, 1987 Constitution)
REMEDIAL LAW – Criminal Procedure – Lawful Warrantless Arrest (R113, S5)
W/N the warrantless search made upon petitioner was unlawful and, consequently, the illegal drugs confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence –
Yes The guaranty of Art 3, S2, 1987 Constitution applies only to searches and seizures tainted with unreasonableness. It is reasonable when the search and seizure is carried out on the strength of a warrant issued upon a judge’s personal determination of probable cause. Jurisprudential exceptions (search and seizure are held reasonable due to the circumstances surrounding the cases despite the lack of a judicial warrant) are:
Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest (Section 12, Rule 126)
Seizure of evidence in “plain view,” the elements of which are:
A prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are;
The evidence must be immediately apparent; and
“Plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.
Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity;
Consented warrantless search;
Customs search;
Stop and Frisk; and
Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.
While probable cause is not required to conduct a “stop and frisk,” mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a “stop and frisk.” A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal behavior and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. The police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act. The arresting officer should have personally observed at least two (2) or more suspicious circumstances. A reasonable inference must be deduced from the totality of circumstances to justify further investigation by the arresting officer.
If the search and seizure is unreasonable, the Constitution renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose, in any proceeding.
RULING CA’s decision was reversed. PO3 Mazo’s testimony demonstrates his lack of personal knowledge of suspicious circumstances that would have created the suspicion of a crime being committed or about to be committed — the necessary impetus for him to “stop and frisk” petitioner. PO3 Mazo’s sight of a metal object on petitioner’s waist, without any other reason, is clearly inadequate to lead him to a genuine reason to justify the stop and frisk search. Prosecution failed to prove the existence of the hand grenade. Petitioner was not even charged with illegal possession of grenade.
MARIO JOEL T. REYES vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 237172, September 18, 2019
J. Leonen
Governor of Palawan assails Decision of the Sandiganbayan, which found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, when he renewed the small scale mining permit of a mining company despite it violating the terms and conditions of its previous permit . Platinum Group transported a total of 203,399.135 dry metric tons of nickel ore under Olympic Mines’ SSMP PLW No. 37 and Platinum Group’s SSMP PLW No. 39 which is beyond the 100,000-dry metric ton threshold of the combined permits, a fact that petitioner does not dispute.
He also assails the Sandiganbayan Resolution revoking his bail due to previous violations of the conditions of bail and for possibility of flight. Petitioner had initially been granted bail when he voluntarily surrendered on September 1, 2011, after he had filed a Waiver of Appearance/Identity and a Hold Departure Order was issued against him. But on the scheduled hearings on October 22 and 23, 2013, petitioner failed to appear, and it was later discovered that he managed to escape to Thailand. He was only returned to the country with the assistance of Thai authorities.
REMEDIAL LAW – Criminal Procedure – Bail (R114, S5)
W/N the Sandiganbayan erred in revoking his bail on the ground of violation of the conditions of his bail and for possibility of flight –
No After judgment by MTC, the defendant shall be admitted to bail as of right. After conviction by other court (RTC and higher courts), the presumption of innocence terminates and, accordingly, the constitutional right to bail ends. From then on, the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion. The importance attached to conviction is due to the underlying principle that bail should be granted only where it is uncertain whether the accused is guilty or innocent, and therefore, where that uncertainty is removed by conviction it would, generally speaking, be absurd to admit to bail. Also, the probability of ultimate punishment is so enhanced by the conviction that the accused is much more likely to attempt to escape if liberated on bail than before conviction
After conviction of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the grant of bail becomes discretionary upon the court, which may either deny or grant it. In circumstances where the penalty imposed exceeds six (6) years, the court is not precluded from cancelling the bail previously granted upon a showing by the prosecution of the circumstances enumerated in Rule 114, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. The presence of even one (1) of the enumerated circumstances is sufficient cause to deny or cancel bail.
CRIMINAL LAW – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019, S3(e),)
W/N accused violated of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 – Yes Elements of violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019:
The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;
He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and
That his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.
Commission of the offense through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence is sufficient for a conviction. There is “manifest partiality” when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another. “Evident bad faith” connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. “Gross inexcusable negligence” refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.
RULING The decision was affirmed. Here, the prosecution has duly proven the existence of the elements. Petitioner was the Palawan Governor during the alleged commission of the crime who had the duty under the Local Government Code to adopt measures for the conservation of the natural resources within the province and tasked with approving the permits for small scale mining operations within the province. Petitioner committed gross inexcusable negligence when he approved Olympic Mines’ SSMP PLW No. 37.1, considering that Olympic Mines violated the terms and conditions of SSMP PLW No. 37.
There was, no error in the Sandiganbayan’s exercise of its discretion to cancel petitioner’s bail. Here, when petitioner fled the country in 2011 after a warrant of arrest for murder had been filed against him, he has been a proven flight risk.
JOSEPH VILLASANA y CABAHUG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 209078, September 4, 2019
J. Leonen
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision convicting Joseph Villasana y Cabahug (Villasana) of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Police officers proceeded to the target area on board three (3) vehicles. Around 10 to 15 minutes later, they saw, through the van’s tinted front windshield, Villasana coming out of an alley around five (5) to six (6) meters away. He was holding a plastic sachet while talking to a woman. The Police officers approached him discreetly. As he reached Villasana, PO3 Martinez held his hand and introduced himself as a police officer. PO3 Martinez arrested him and confiscated the sachet. Villasana and the seized drug were brought to the Marulas Barangay Hall, where an inventory was made. The inventory was signed by Kagawad and a former official. PO3 Martinez marked the confiscated item with Villasana’s initials, “JCV,” in the “office.” Then, he brought Villasana and the seized specimen to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory in Caloocan City for drug testing and laboratory examination.
REMEDIAL LAW – Criminal Procedure – Appeal (R122, R125, R45)
W/N petitioner availed the wrong remedy (R45) since petitioner effectively raises questions of fact requiring an examination of evidence.
As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This Court is not a trier of facts. However, where facts of weight and substance have been overlooked, misconstrued, or misapplied, SC is not precluded from reviewing the factual findings of the lower courts, or even arriving at a different conclusion.
POLITICAL LAW – Search Incidental to Lawful Warrantless Arrest – In flagrante delicto arrest (Art III, S2, 1987 Constitution)
REMEDIAL LAW – Criminal Procedure – Lawful Warrantless Arrest (R113, S5)
W/N the warrantless search made upon petitioner was unlawful and, consequently, the illegal drug confiscated from him is inadmissible in evidence –
Yes, As a rule, a search and seizure must be carried out with a search warrant validly issued by a judge upon personal determination of probable cause; otherwise, the search becomes unreasonable. It follows that any item or article obtained from such search cannot be used as evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. An exception to the search warrant requirement is a search incidental to a lawful arrest. The lawful arrest must precede the search; the process cannot be reversed.
Lawful Warrantless Arrests
Warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto (5a); Two elements must concur:
The person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he [or she] has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime (overt act test); and
Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
Warrantless arrest Hot Pursuit (5b)
That at the time of the arrest, an offense had just been committed and
The arresting officer had personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the accused had committed it.
Warrantless arrest of escapees
It is settled that “reliable information” provided by Police assets alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. There must be independent circumstances that the accused performs some overt act within plain view of the Police officers indicating that she or “he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime.
With petitioner’s arrest being illegal, the subsequent seizure of the shabu allegedly in his possession becomes “unreasonable.”
Petitioner’s failure to question his arrest before he made his plea only affects the jurisdiction of the court over his person and does not bar him from raising the inadmissibility of the illegally seized shabu. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained during the illegal arrest.
REMEDIAL LAW – Evidence – Chain of Custody (R.A. 9165, S21)
W/N integrity of the corpus delicti was preserved –
No, The corpus delicti in the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs consists in the dangerous drug itself, without which no conviction of the accused can be obtained. Each link in the chain of custody of the seized drug must be accounted for to show that there was no “tampering, alteration [,] or substitution either by accident or otherwise.”
Marking of the dangerous drugs or related item is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of the dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.
This Court mandated a strict adherence to the requirements of Section 21. The exception under Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 “will only apply when: (a) there is a justifiable ground for the noncompliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items.
RULING Decision was reversed. Here, the chain of custody was broken due to the arresting officers’ failure to mark the confiscated plastic sachets immediately upon seizure and in the presence of petitioner or his representative. Also, they failed to comply with the inventory and photographing requirements since the inventory sheet was not signed by representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, and there were no photographs taken. PO3 Martinez neither tendered any justification in court, nor was there any explanation or justification by the apprehending officers why there was departure from the mandates of Sec 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR.
SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, MILAGROS O. CALIDA, JOSEF CALIDA, MICHELLE CALIDA, AND MARK JOREL CALIDA, PETITIONERS, v. SENATOR ANTONIO “SONNY” TRILLANES IV, THE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATIONS (BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE), AND THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE, GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION, AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 240873, September 03, 2019
J. Leonen
Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, et al. filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying that Antonio Trillanes IV (Trillanes), then a sitting senator, be permanently prohibited from conducting a legislative inquiry into their alleged conflict of interest on government contracts awarded to their security services company. Petitioners claim that Proposed Senate Resolution No. 7603 does not contain any intended legislation. Instead, it merely calls for an investigation on any conflict of interest regarding the award of government contracts to Vigilant Investigative and Security Agency, Inc., a company owned by petitioner Calida and his family. They likewise claim that respondent Trillanes acted without authority in issuing invitations to the resource persons, as the invitations were sent out without the Senate body’s approval of the proposed resolution.
POLITICAL LAW – Legislative Power (Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
W/N respondents, should be enjoined from conducting hearings in aid of legislation over Proposed Senate Resolution No. 760 –
No. The legislative power to conduct investigations in aid of legislation is conferred by Article VI, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution. Despite the constitutional grant, the power of both the House of Representatives and the Senate to conduct investigations in aid of legislation is not absolute as it must comply with the rules of procedure of each House of Congress, and must not violate the individual rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Court explained further that a legislative inquiry must prove to be in aid of legislation and not for other purposes since Congress is neither a law enforcement nor a trial agency.
POLITICAL LAW – Legislative Power (Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
REMEDIAL LAW – Criminal Procedure – Lawful Warrantless Arrest (R113, S5)
W/N the warrantless search made upon petitioner was unlawful and, consequently, the illegal drug confiscated from him is inadmissible in evidence –
Yes, This Court’s power of judicial review is limited to an actual case and controversy.36 An actual case and controversy exists when there is a conflict of legal rights or opposite legal claims capable of judicial resolution and a specific relief.37 The controversy must be real and substantial, and must require a specific relief that courts can grant.38
A case becomes moot when it loses its justiciability, as there is no longer a conflict of legal rights which would entail judicial review. This Court is precluded from ruling on moot cases where no justiciable controversy exists.
However, exceptions do exist. David v. Macapagal-Arroyo39 enumerated the circumstances when this Court may still rule on issues that are otherwise moot:
Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.40 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
None of the established exceptions exist in this case.
This Court takes judicial notice that Proposed Senate Resolution No. 76041 was filed on May 30, 2018, during the second regular session of the 17th Congress. The 17th Congress closed on June 4, 2019,42 while the 18th Congress opened on July 22, 201943 and will close in June 2022.
With the closing of the 17th Congress, the investigation into Proposed Senate Resolution No. 760 automatically ceased, rendering this case moot as “the conflicting issue that may be resolved by the court cease[d] to exist.”44
This Court also takes judicial notice that respondent Trillanes has reached the end of his two-year term as senator. Thus, petitioners’ prayer for this Court to permanently prohibit him from conducting an investigation into their supposed conflict of interest has likewise been rendered moot.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED.
RULING Decision was reversed. Here, the chain of custody was broken due to the arresting officers’ failure to mark the confiscated plastic sachets immediately upon seizure and in the presence of petitioner or his representative. Also, they failed to comply with the inventory and photographing requirements since the inventory sheet was not signed by representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, and there were no photographs taken. PO3 Martinez neither tendered any justification in court, nor was there any explanation or justification by the apprehending officers why there was departure from the mandate of Sec 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR.