Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83840:58353&catid=1589&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:05:14+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 199042, November 17, 2014 - DANILO VILLANUEVA Y ALCARAZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DANILO VILLANUEVA Y ALCARAZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
That on or about the 15th day of June 2004 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 0.63 gram knowing the same to [be a] dangerous drug under the provisions of the above-cited law.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring accused DANILO VILLANUEVA y ALCARAZ, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165. Henceforth, this Court hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as the minimum to seventeen (17) years and eight (8) months as the maximum and to pay the fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The drugs subject matter of this case is ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with the law.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated April 6, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, Caloocan City in Criminal Case No. 70854 finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt is hereby AFFIRMED.
On 27 May 2011, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,13 which the CA denied in a Resolution14 dated 18 October 2011.
Petitioner claims that his arrest does not fall within the purview of valid warrantless arrests, since it took place on the day of the alleged shooting incident. Hence, to "invite" him to the precinct without any warrant of arrest was illegal. The evidence obtained is, consequently, inadmissible.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment16 stating that the shabu confiscated from petitioner was admissible in evidence against him; that the search conducted on him was valid; and that he cannot raise the issue regarding the apprehending officers' non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 for the first time on appeal.
We find the instant appeal meritorious.
questioning the legality of his arrest.
not among those allowed by law.
A waiver of an illegal arrest, however, is not a waiver of an illegal search.18 Records have established that both the arrest and the search were made without a warrant. While the accused has already waived his right to contest the legality of his arrest, he is not deemed to have equally waived his right to contest the legality of the search.
Q: And what did you do when you frisked a small plastic sachet?
A: When I felt something inside his pocket, I ordered him to bring out the thing which I felt.
Q: And what did Danilo Villanueva do when you instructed him to bring out the contents of his pocket?
The evidence obtained is not admissible.
Having been obtained through an unlawful search, the seized item is thus inadmissible in evidence against accused-appellant. Obviously, this is an instance of seizure of the "fruit of the poisonous tree." Hence, the confiscated item is inadmissible in evidence consonant with Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution: "Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding."23 Without the seized item, therefore, the conviction of accused-appellant cannot be sustained. This being the case, we see no more reason to discuss the alleged lapses of the officers in the handling of the confiscated drug.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated 4 May 2011 and Resolution dated 18 October 2011 issued by the Fourteenth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R. No. 32582 are SET ASIDE. Petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED.
*Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin per S.O. No. 1870.
2 Id. at 35-52; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Agnes Reyes Carpio.
9 Records, pp. 165-171; penned by Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos.
11Rollo, p. 39. 12Id. at 51.
17People vs. Rabang, G.R. No. 73403, 23 July 1990, 187 SCRA 682.
18Valdez v. People, 563 Phil. 934 (2000).
19People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, 3 August 2010, 626 SCRA 633.
20Caballes v. CA, 424 Phil. 263 (2002).
21Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788, 29 February 2012, 667 SCRA 421.
22 TSN, 8 November 2004, p. 8.
23 People v. Racho, supra note 15.
24People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, 22 February 2007, 516 SCRA 463, 484-485.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.