Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83189:57165&catid=1584&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:13:32+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEDARIO CALANTIAO Y DIMALANTA, Accused-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEDARIO CALANTIAO Y DIMALANTA, Accused-Appellant.
This is an appeal from the January 17, 2012 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04069, affirming in toto the July 23, 2009 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 127, finding accused-appellant Medario Calantiao y Dimalanta (Calantiao) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
That on or about the 11th day of November, 2003 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control two (2) bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops with a total weight of 997.9 grams, knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
On November 13, 2003[,] at around 5:30 x x x in the afternoon, while PO1 NELSON MARIANO and PO3 EDUARDO RAMIREZ were on duty, a certain EDWIN LOJERA arrived at their office and asked for police assistance regarding a shooting incident. Per report of the latter, it appears that while driving a towing truck and traversing along EDSA, Balintawak, Quezon City, he had a traffic dispute (gitgitan) with a white taxi cab prompting him to follow said vehicle until they reached along 8th Avenue Street corner C-3 Road, Caloocan City. Thereat, the passengers of said taxi cab, one of them was accused Calantiao, alighted and fired their guns. Surprised, Lojera could not do anything but continued his driving until he reached a police station nearby where he reported the incident.
The police officers on duty then were PO1 NELSON MARIANO and PO3 EDUARDO RAMIREZ. PO1 Mariano testified that they immediately responded to said complaint by proceeding to 5th Avenue corner 8th Street, Caloocan City where they found the white taxi. While approaching said vehicle, two armed men alighted therefrom, fired their guns towards them (police officers) and ran away. PO1 Mariano and PO3 Ramirez chased them but they were subdued. PO1 Mariano recovered from Calantiao a black bag containing two (2) bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops and a magazine of super 38 stainless with ammos, while PO3 Ramirez recovered from Calantiao’s companion [a] .38 revolver.
The suspects and the confiscated items were then turned over to SPO3 PABLO TEMENA, police investigator at Bagong Barrio Police Station for investigation. Thereat, PO1 Mariano marked the bricks of marijuana contained in a black bag with his initials, “NM”. Thereafter, said specimen were forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis. The result of the examination conducted by P/SINSP. JESSSE DELA ROSA revealed that the same was positive for marijuana, a dangerous drug.
The foregoing testimony of PO1 MARIANO was corroborated by PO3 RAMIREZ who testified that he personally saw those bricks of marijuana confiscated from the accused. He confirmed that he was with PO1 Mariano when they apprehended said accused and his companion and testified that while PO1 Mariano recovered from the accused a black bag containing marijuana, on his part, he confiscated from accused’s companion a .38 revolver.
MR. CRISENDO AMANSEC, the driver of the taxi where the suspects boarded was also presented in open court and testified as to what he knows about the incident. He confirmed that on that date, two (2) persons boarded on his taxi and upon reaching C-3 Road, they alighted and fired three (3) shots and ran away.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED ITEMS ARE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS’ PATENT NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS.
Finding that all the elements of the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs to be present and duly proven,10 the Court of Appeals, on January 17, 2012, promulgated its Decision, affirming in toto the RTC’s ruling.
First, the plain view doctrine is not an exception to a search incident to a valid warrantless arrest.
Second, Calantiao did not waive the inadmissibility of the seized items.
In essence, Calantiao is questioning the admissibility of the marijuana found in his possession, as evidence against him on the grounds of either it was discovered via an illegal search, or because its custodial chain was broken.
This Court finds no merit in Calantiao’s arguments.
Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
The purpose of allowing a warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest is “to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach.”13 It is therefore a reasonable exercise of the State’s police power to protect (1) law enforcers from the injury that may be inflicted on them by a person they have lawfully arrested; and (2) evidence from being destroyed by the arrestee. It seeks to ensure the safety of the arresting officers and the integrity of the evidence under the control and within the reach of the arrestee.
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapon that the latter might use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.
In the case at bar, the marijuana was found in a black bag in Calantiao’s possession and within his immediate control. He could have easily taken any weapon from the bag or dumped it to destroy the evidence inside it. As the black bag containing the marijuana was in Calantiao’s possession, it was within the permissible area that the apprehending officers could validly conduct a warrantless search.
Calantiao’s argument that the marijuana cannot be used as evidence against him because its discovery was in violation of the Plain View Doctrine, is misplaced.
The Plain View Doctrine thus finds no applicability in Calantiao’s situation because the police officers purposely searched him upon his arrest. The police officers did not inadvertently come across the black bag, which was in Calantiao’s possession; they deliberately opened it, as part of the search incident to Calantiao’s lawful arrest.
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the matter of “marking” of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the “chain of custody” rule requires that the “marking” of the seized items – to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence –should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation.
The prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody of the seized marijuana from the time the police officers confiscated it, to the time it was turned over to the investigating officer, up to the time it was brought to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination.21 This Court has no reason to overrule the RTC and the Court of Appeals, which both found the chain of custody of the seized drugs to have not been broken so as to render the marijuana seized from Calantiao inadmissible in evidence.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the January 17, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04069.
1Rollo, pp. 2-18; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 22-29; penned by Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos and docketed as Criminal Case No. 69566.
4 CA rollo, pp. 23-24.
8 CA rollo, p. 46.
12 CA rollo, pp. 50-52.
13People v. Valeroso, 614 Phil. 236, 252 (2009).
16People v. Omogbolahan and Leangsiri, 322 Phil. 226, 248 (1996).
17People v. Valeroso, supra note 13 at 253. Citing People v. Cubcubin, Jr., 413 Phil. 249, 271-272 (2001); People v. Omogbolahan and Leangsiri, id. at 249-250.
18 CA rollo, p. 53.
19People v. Ocfemia, G.R. No. 185383, September 25, 2013.
22People v. Amansec, G.R. No. 186131, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 574, 594-595.
24People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No. 186418, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 250, 269.
25People v. Valencia, 439 Phil. 561, 568 (2002).

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