Ambre vs. People

A warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto is valid even if the arresting officers had no prior lawful intrusion into the place where the offense was witnessed, and the search incident to such lawful arrest is likewise valid; the failure to observe the inventory-and-photograph requirements under R.A. No. 9165 does not render the seized items inadmissible where the prosecution has shown that their integrity and evidentiary value were preserved.

Margarita Ambre y Cayuni was charged, together with Bernie Castro and Kaycee Mendoza, before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City under two separate Informations arising from a police operation conducted on April 20, 2005. The charges were for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and for illegal use of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) under Section 15, Article II of the same statute, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Castro and Mendoza pleaded guilty to both charges and were accordingly sentenced, while Ambre entered a plea of not guilty and stood trial. The case reached the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari after the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction.

On April 20, 2005, the Caloocan Police Station Anti-Illegal Drug-Special Operation Unit conducted a buy-bust operation pursuant to a tip from a police informant that a certain Abdulah Sultan and his wife Ina Aderp were engaged in the selling of dangerous drugs at a residential compound in Caloocan City. The operation resulted in the arrest of Aderp and a certain Moctar Tagoranao. Sultan ran away from the scene of the entrapment operation, and PO3 Fernando Moran, PO2 Masi, and PO1 Ronald Allan Mateo pursued him. In the course of the chase, Sultan led the police officers to his house.

Inside the house, according to the prosecution, the police operatives found Margarita Ambre y Cayuni, Bernie Castro, and Kaycee Mendoza having a pot session. Ambre in particular was caught sniffing what was suspected to be shabu in a rolled-up aluminum foil. PO3 Moran ran after Sultan while PO2 Masi and PO1 Mateo arrested Ambre, Castro, and Mendoza for illegal use of shabu. PO1 Mateo positively identified Ambre sniffing suspected shabu from an aluminum foil being held by Castro.

The items confiscated from the three were marked and thereafter submitted for laboratory examination. Physical Science Report No. DT-041-05 to DT-043-05 stated that the urine samples taken from Ambre and her co-accused were positive for the presence of shabu, while Physical Science Report No. D-149-05 showed that the items seized from them were all found positive for traces of shabu. After the arrest, the following items were confiscated: one unsealed sachet with traces of suspected shabu; one strip of rolled-up aluminum foil with traces of suspected shabu; one folded piece of aluminum foil with traces of white crystalline substance also believed to be shabu; and two yellow disposable lighters. Upon arrival at the police station, PO3 Moran turned over the seized items to PO2 Randulfo Hipolito, who immediately marked them in the presence of the former. All the pieces of evidence were placed inside an improvised envelope marked as "SAID-SOU EVIDENCE 04-20-05." With the Request for Laboratory Examination, PO2 Hipolito brought the confiscated items to the PNP Crime Laboratory and delivered them to P/Insp. Jessie dela Rosa, a forensic chemist, who found all the items, except the disposable lighters, positive for traces of shabu.

Ambre vehemently denied the charges. Through her testimony and those of Mendoza and Lily Rosete, the defense claimed that on the afternoon of April 20, 2005, Ambre was inside the residential compound in Caloocan to buy malong; that her mother asked Rosete to accompany her because Rosete's daughter-in-law, Nancy Buban, was a resident of Phase 12, Caloocan City, an area inhabited by Muslims; that when they failed to buy malong, Rosete and Buban left her inside the residential compound to look for other vendors; that ten minutes later, the policemen barged inside the compound and arrested her; that she was detained at the Caloocan City Jail where she met Castro, Mendoza, and Tagoranao; and that she was not brought to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for drug testing. Rosete further testified that after she had left Ambre inside the compound to find other malong vendors, she returned fifteen minutes later and learned that the policemen had arrested people inside the compound, including Ambre. Mendoza, who had been convicted in Criminal Case No. C-73029, claimed that no pot session took place on the afternoon of April 20, 2005; she averred that she and Ambre were merely inside the residential compound when policemen suddenly came in and pointed guns at them.

The trial court found that the prosecution had established with certitude Ambre's guilt for illegal use of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, crediting the positive testimony of PO1 Mateo identifying Ambre as the person sniffing suspected shabu from an aluminum foil held by Castro, and corroborated by the physical science reports showing positive results for shabu in the urine samples and on the seized items. The trial court likewise found that the prosecution failed to prove with particularity the drug paraphernalia allegedly in Ambre's possession, and acquitted her of the charge under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

• Invalid Warrantless Arrest and Search: Ambre insisted that the warrantless arrest and search made against her were illegal because no offense was being committed at the time and the police operatives were not authorized by a judicial order to enter the dwelling of Sultan; she argued that the alleged "hot pursuit" of Sultan, which ended in the latter's house where she, Mendoza, and Castro were supposedly found having a pot session, was more imaginary than real.
• Dismissal of the Buy-Bust Case Against Sultan and Aderp: Ambre cited the April 29, 2005 Resolution of the Prosecutor's Office of Caloocan City dismissing the case against Aderp and Sultan for insufficiency of evidence because the April 20, 2005 buy-bust operation was highly suspicious and doubtful, and posited that the items allegedly seized from her were inadmissible in evidence as fruits of a poisonous tree.
• Non-Observance of R.A. No. 9165 Procedure: Ambre claimed that the omission of the apprehending team to observe the procedure outlined in R.A. No. 9165 for the seizure of evidence in drugs cases significantly impairs the prosecution's case.
• Lack of Confirmatory Test: Ambre maintained that she was not subjected to a confirmatory test and, hence, the imposition of the penalty of six months rehabilitation was not justified.

• Validity of the Warrantless Arrest: The Office of the Solicitor General urged the Court to affirm the challenged decision for failure of Ambre to show that the RTC committed any error in convicting her of illegal use of shabu, and insisted that Ambre was lawfully arrested in accordance with Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: The OSG was of the opinion that the credible and compelling evidence of the prosecution could not be displaced by the empty denial offered by Ambre.

• Validity of the Warrantless Arrest and Search: Whether the warrantless arrest of Ambre and the search of her person was valid.
• Admissibility of the Seized Items: Whether the items seized are inadmissible in evidence.

• Validity of the Warrantless Arrest and Search: Yes. Ambre was caught in the act of using shabu, a valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, and the search incident to that lawful arrest was likewise valid under Section 13, Rule 126.
• Admissibility of the Seized Items: No. The seized items are admissible, the prosecution having shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug paraphernalia were not compromised despite the absence of a physical inventory and photograph.

• Validity of the Warrantless Arrest and Search: Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which the search and seizure becomes unreasonable and the evidence obtained is tainted as the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree, inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. This exclusionary rule, however, is not an absolute and rigid proscription; one recognized exception established by jurisprudence is search incident to a lawful arrest, which requires that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a person and his belongings. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure recognizes permissible warrantless arrests, including arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto. To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Ambre was caught by the police officers in the act of using shabu, and PO1 Mateo positively identified her sniffing suspected shabu from an aluminum foil being held by Castro. Her argument that there was no prior valid intrusion in the residence of Sultan is specious, because prior justification for intrusion or prior lawful intrusion is not an element of an arrest in flagrante delicto; thus, even granting arguendo that the apprehending officers had no legal right to be present in Sultan's dwelling, it would not render unlawful the arrest of Ambre, who was seen sniffing shabu with Castro and Mendoza in a pot session. Accordingly, PO2 Masi and PO1 Mateo were not only authorized but were also duty-bound to arrest Ambre together with Castro and Mendoza for illegal use of methamphetamine hydrochloride in violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. On the issue of validity and irregularity in her warrantless arrest, Ambre is deemed to have waived her objections to her arrest for not raising them before entering her plea. Considering that the warrantless arrest of Ambre was valid, the subsequent search and seizure done on her person was likewise lawful, since a legitimate warrantless arrest necessarily cloaks the arresting police officer with authority to validly search and seize from the offender (1) dangerous weapons, and (2) those that may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, pursuant to Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. The physical evidence corroborated the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses: the urine samples taken from Ambre and her co-accused were found positive for the presence of shabu as indicated in Physical Science Report No. DT-041-05 to DT-043-05, and the items seized from the three were all positive for traces of shabu as contained in Physical Science Report No. D-149-05 dated April 21, 2005; these findings were unrebutted.
• Admissibility of the Seized Items: Ambre's assertion that her conviction was incorrect because the evidence against her was obtained in violation of the procedure laid down in R.A. No. 9165 is untenable. While ideally the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality it is not, as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain; the Court has consistently held that the most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. In this case, the prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug paraphernalia had not been compromised; hence, even though the prosecution failed to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the drug paraphernalia with traces of shabu, this will not render Ambre's arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible. The records bear out that after the arrest of Ambre with Castro and Mendoza, the items were confiscated from them; upon arrival at the police station, PO3 Moran turned over the seized items to PO2 Hipolito, who immediately marked them in the presence of the former; all the pieces of evidence were placed inside an improvised envelope marked as "SAID-SOU EVIDENCE 04-20-05"; with the Request for Laboratory Examination, PO2 Hipolito brought the confiscated items to the PNP Crime Laboratory and delivered them to P/Insp. dela Rosa, a forensic chemist, who found all the items, except the disposable lighters, positive for traces of shabu. The prosecution had thus adduced ample evidence to account for the crucial links in the chain of custody of the seized items. Even if the Court were to strike down the seized drug paraphernalia with traces of shabu as inadmissible, Ambre would not be exculpated from criminal liability. First, proof of the existence and possession by the accused of drug paraphernalia is not a condition sine qua non for conviction of illegal use of dangerous drugs; the law merely considers possession of drug paraphernalia as prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, ingested, or used a dangerous drug and creates a presumption that he has violated Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165. Second, the testimonies of the police officers adequately established with moral certainty the commission of the crime charged in the information and the identity of Ambre as the perpetrator; the RTC's finding that the police officers' testimonies deserve full faith and credit is affirmed, since appellate courts generally will not disturb the trial court's assessment of a witness' credibility unless certain material facts and circumstances have been overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded, and no reason to deviate from this rule was found. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties is likewise upheld, the defense having failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive; there was no showing that PO3 Moran, PO1 Mateo, PO2 Hipolito, and P/Insp. dela Rosa were impelled by improper motive to falsely impute the offense against Ambre. As against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the defense of denial offered by Ambre must simply fail, since bare denials cannot prevail over positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses; the defense of denial or frame-up has been viewed with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Finally, on Ambre's contention that the penalty of six months of rehabilitation in a government center imposed on her was a nullity in view of the alleged lack of confirmatory test, the Court is not persuaded: in no instance did Ambre challenge at the RTC the supposed absence of a confirmatory drug test conducted on her, and she only questioned the alleged omission when she appealed her conviction before the CA; it was too late in the day for her to do so, as litigants cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal, which would contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice.

• Warrantless Arrest in Flagrante Delicto — Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court permits a peace officer or a private person to arrest, without a warrant, a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that Ambre's arrest was valid because PO1 Mateo positively identified her sniffing suspected shabu from an aluminum foil being held by Castro, an overt act committed within the view of the arresting officers.
• Prior Lawful Intrusion Not an Element of In Flagrante Delicto Arrest — Prior justification for intrusion, or prior lawful intrusion, is not an element of an arrest in flagrante delicto. Even granting that the apprehending officers had no legal right to be present in the dwelling of Sultan, this would not render unlawful the arrest of Ambre, who was seen committing an offense in their presence.
• Waiver of Objections to the Arrest — Objections to the validity or irregularity of a warrantless arrest are deemed waived if not raised before the accused enters a plea. Ambre was held to have waived her objections to her arrest for not raising them before entering her plea.
• Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest — Under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, a legitimate warrantless arrest necessarily cloaks the arresting police officer with authority to validly search and seize from the offender (1) dangerous weapons, and (2) those that may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. Because the warrantless arrest of Ambre was valid, the subsequent search and seizure done on her person was likewise lawful.
• Chain of Custody — Preservation of Integrity and Evidentiary Value — While ideally the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain; the most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the drug paraphernalia does not render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible where the prosecution has demonstrated that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items were not compromised.
• Possession of Drug Paraphernalia Not Sine Qua Non for Illegal Use — Proof of the existence and possession by the accused of drug paraphernalia is not a condition sine qua non for conviction of illegal use of dangerous drugs. Under Section 12, paragraph 2, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, possession of drug paraphernalia is merely prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, ingested, or used a dangerous drug and creates a presumption that he has violated Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165.
• Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties — The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties remains unless the defense presents clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or were inspired by an improper motive. The presumption was not overcome in this case.
• Denial and Frame-Up as Defenses — Bare denials cannot prevail over positive identification made by prosecution witnesses, and the defense of denial or frame-up is viewed with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
• Issues Raised for the First Time on Appeal — Litigants cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal, as this would contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice. Ambre's challenge to the absence of a confirmatory drug test, raised only on appeal, was barred on this ground.

• "Suffice it to state that prior justification for intrusion or prior lawful intrusion is not an element of an arrest in flagrante delicto. Thus, even granting arguendo that the apprehending officers had no legal right to be present in the dwelling of Sultan, it would not render unlawful the arrest of Ambre, who was seen sniffing shabu with Castro and Mendoza in a pot session by the police officers." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the validity of the warrantless arrest, holding that the absence of a lawful intrusion into the premises does not invalidate an in flagrante delicto arrest.
• "Clearly, to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer." — This passage provides the canonical two-element formulation of a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, a frequently cited test in Philippine criminal procedure.
• "While ideally the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is not as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. This Court, however, has consistently held that the most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items." — This passage defines the controlling standard for chain-of-custody objections in dangerous drugs cases, prioritizing the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items over strict compliance with the inventory-and-photograph requirements.
• "First, let it be underscored that proof of the existence and possession by the accused of drug paraphernalia is not a condition sine qua non for conviction of illegal use of dangerous drugs. The law merely considers possession of drug paraphernalia as prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, ingested or used a dangerous drug and creates a presumption that he has violated Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165." — This passage establishes that conviction for illegal use of dangerous drugs does not depend on proof of possession of drug paraphernalia, which the statute treats only as prima facie evidence of use.

• People vs. Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 174774, August 31, 2011, 656 SCRA 417, 449 — Cited as authority for the rule that search incident to a lawful arrest is a recognized exception to the warrantless search and seizure proscription.
• People vs. Chua, 444 Phil. 757, 770 (2003) — Cited as authority for the two requisites of a valid in flagrante delicto arrest.
• People vs. Ng Yik Bun, G.R. No. 180452, January 10, 2011, 639 SCRA 88, 103-104 — Cited as authority for the rule that an accused is deemed to have waived objections to the irregularity of his arrest for failure to raise them before entering a plea.
• People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 189327, February 29, 2012 — Cited as authority for the rule that an unbroken chain of custody is almost always impossible to obtain.
• People vs. Manlangit, G.R. No. 189806, January 12, 2011, 639 SCRA 455, 469 — Cited as authority for the rule that the most important factor in chain-of-custody questions is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
• People vs. Gregorio, Jr., G.R. No. 174474, May 25, 2007, 523 SCRA 216, 227 — Cited as authority for the rule that appellate courts generally will not disturb the trial court's assessment of a witness' credibility absent overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded material facts and circumstances.
• People vs. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, September 28, 2011 — Cited as authority for the rule that bare denials cannot prevail over positive identification made by prosecution witnesses.
• People vs. Astudillo, 440 Phil. 203, 224 (2002) — Cited as authority for the rule that the defense of denial or frame-up is viewed with disfavor as a common and standard ploy in prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

• Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Mandates that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The Court invoked this provision as the general rule requiring a judicial warrant for searches and seizures.
• Section 3(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Provides the exclusionary rule, under which evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. The Court cited this provision in stating the general rule but held that the exclusionary rule is not an absolute and rigid proscription, one exception being a search incident to a lawful arrest.
• Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court — Enumerates the instances when a warrantless arrest may be lawfully effected, including arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto under paragraph (a), where the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer. The Court applied this provision in upholding Ambre's warrantless arrest.
• Section 13, Rule 126, Rules of Court — Authorizes the search and seizure of (1) dangerous weapons and (2) those that may be used as proof of the commission of an offense from a person lawfully arrested. The Court applied this provision in holding that the search and seizure on Ambre's person was lawful as an incident to her valid warrantless arrest.
• Section 12, paragraph 2, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Provides that possession of drug paraphernalia is prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, ingested, or used a dangerous drug and creates a presumption that he has violated Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165. The Court cited this provision in holding that possession of drug paraphernalia is not a condition sine qua non for conviction of illegal use of dangerous drugs.
• Section 15, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Penalizes the illegal use of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The Court held that Ambre was validly arrested for violation of this provision and affirmed her conviction thereunder.

• Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson)
• Roberto A. Abad
• Jose Portugal Perez
• Bienvenido L. Reyes