People vs. Alunday

A warrantless arrest is valid under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court when the accused is caught in flagrante delicto committing an offense in the presence of the arresting officer, and any objection to the legality of the arrest is deemed waived if not raised before the accused enters a plea.

In May 2000, the Mountain Province Police Intelligence Section received a report of a marijuana plantation at Mount Churyon, Sadanga. After a series of validations, a 70-man police team launched "Operation Banana" on August 2, 2000. Upon reaching the plantation on the morning of August 3, 2000, SPO1 George Saipen spotted Ricardo Alunday cutting and gathering marijuana plants from a distance of 30 meters. Saipen approached, identified himself as a police officer, and apprehended Alunday. Inside a nearby hut, the operatives saw an old woman, an M16 rifle, and dried marijuana leaves. The team uprooted and burned the marijuana plants, taking samples that later tested positive for marijuana. Alunday claimed he was at the site to haul lumber and search for squash, denied owning or knowing the marijuana plants, and alleged the plantation belonged to the Cordillera People's Liberation Army (CPLA).

• The Charges: On August 7, 2000, two informations were filed against Ricardo Alunday. In Criminal Case No. 1528, he was charged with violating Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6425 for cultivating marijuana fruiting tops weighing more than 750 grams on a ten-hectare plantation. In Criminal Case No. 1529, he was charged with violating Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 for possessing an M16 rifle without a permit.
• The Validation and Operation: Sometime in May 2000, police intelligence received a report of a marijuana plantation at Mount Churyon, Sadanga, Mountain Province. Police Senior Inspector Andrew Cayad engaged a confidential informant to validate the report, which was finally confirmed on August 2, 2000. A 70-man police contingent, joined by a Philippine Information Agency representative to videotape the operation, proceeded to the area.
• The Apprehension: On the morning of August 3, 2000, SPO1 George Saipen and his group spotted Alunday cutting and gathering marijuana plants from a distance of approximately 30 meters. Saipen and a companion approached, identified themselves as police officers, and apprehended Alunday. Inside a nearby hut, the officers found an old woman, an M16 rifle, and dried marijuana leaves. The rest of the team uprooted and burned the marijuana plants, while samples were taken for laboratory examination.
• The Laboratory Examination: Forensic Analyst Emilia Gracia Montes of the PNP Crime Laboratory received 17 pieces of fully grown suspected marijuana plants. Upon testing, all specimens were found positive for marijuana.
• The Defense's Version: Alunday denied the accusations, testifying that he went to Mount Churyon on August 2, 2000, to haul lumber and slept in the hut of an old woman named Ligka Baydon. The following morning, he went out to search for squash to cook for breakfast when policemen suddenly approached him. He claimed the officers asked if he owned the marijuana plants, to which he answered in the negative, stating he did not know what a marijuana plant looked like. His aunt, Wayto Alunday, and daughter, Linda Dalasnac, corroborated his testimony that he was at Mount Churyon to get lumber.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner argued that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, maintaining that the prosecution's evidence should not be given credence over his defense of denial.
• Illegality of Arrest: Petitioner asserted that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over his person because his arrest was effected without a warrant and did not fall under any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. He insisted that the police had three months from the initial report to secure a warrant, and the urgency of the situation could not justify their failure to do so.
• Lack of Ownership of the Plantation: Petitioner theorized that he could not have been the perpetrator of the crime charged because the marijuana plantation was maintained by the Cordillera People's Liberation Army (CPLA), a fact confirmed by prosecution witness Cayad.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Respondent countered that the factual findings of the trial court, especially those concerning the credibility of witnesses, are entitled to respect and should not be disturbed on appeal absent any glaring error or misapprehension of facts. The positive identification by police officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, should prevail over the self-serving and biased testimonies of the accused and his relatives.
• Validity of the Arrest: Respondent argued that the warrantless arrest was valid under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court because the accused was caught in flagrante delicto—actually cutting and gathering marijuana plants in the presence of the arresting officers.
• Irrelevance of Land Ownership: Respondent maintained that ownership of the land where the marijuana was planted is not a requisite for the offense of cultivation under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6425; the offense is committed by the act of planting, cultivating, or culturing the prohibited plants.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the prosecution proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite his defense of denial and claim that the CPLA maintained the marijuana plantation.
• Validity of Warrantless Arrest: Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused was valid under the in flagrante delicto exception in Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
• Waiver of Objection to Arrest: Whether the accused waived his right to object to the legality of his warrantless arrest by failing to raise the issue before arraignment and actively participating in the trial.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The conviction was affirmed. Positive identification by prosecution witnesses prevails over the bare denial of the accused, especially when the defense witnesses are relatives whose testimonies are biased and inconsistent. Furthermore, ownership of the land is not an element of the crime under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6425; the offense is committed by the act of cultivating or planting the prohibited drug.
• Validity of Warrantless Arrest: The warrantless arrest was justified under Section 5(a), Rule 113 as an arrest in flagrante delicto. The accused was caught in the act of cutting and gathering marijuana plants in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, observed from a distance of 30 meters. The delay from the time the police received the information in May 2000 to the arrest on August 3, 2000, was due to the necessary validation of the report, which was confirmed only on August 2, 2000.
• Waiver of Objection to Arrest: Any objection to the legality of the arrest was deemed waived. An objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before entering a plea. By entering a counsel-assisted plea of not guilty and actively participating in the trial, the accused voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, curing any defect in his arrest. It was too late to complain about the warrantless arrest on appeal.

• In Flagrante Delicto Arrest — A peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant when, in his presence, the person to be arrested is committing an offense. The offense is deemed committed in the officer's presence even if observed at a distance, provided the officer sees the act and proceeds immediately to the scene. Applied to uphold the warrantless arrest of Alunday, who was seen cutting marijuana plants from 30 meters away.
• Waiver of Objection to Illegal Arrest — Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before entering a plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction by entering a plea and actively participating in the trial cures any defect in the arrest. Applied to defeat Alunday's challenge to his warrantless arrest, which was raised for the first time on appeal.
• Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Duty — Police officers are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner unless there is evidence to the contrary. Where there is no indication that prosecution witnesses were moved by improper motives, their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. Applied to uphold the credibility of the prosecution's police witnesses over the accused's denial.

• "In flagrante delicto means caught in the act of committing a crime. This rule, which warrants the arrest of a person without warrant, requires that the person arrested has just committed a crime, or is committing it, or is about to commit an offense, in the presence or within view of the arresting officer."
• "The Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived."
• "Ownership of the land where the marijuana seedlings are planted, cultivated and cultured is not a requisite of the offense."

• People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87 (July 7, 2004) — Followed. Cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua must be remanded to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review before elevation to the Supreme Court.
• People v. Sucro, G.R. No. 93239 (March 18, 1991) — Followed. When a police officer sees the offense, although at a distance, and proceeds at once to the scene, an arrest without warrant is valid under Section 5(a), Rule 113 as the offense is deemed committed in his presence.
• People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595 (1999) — Cited for the definition of in flagrante delicto in the context of warrantless arrests.
• People v. Tidula, 354 Phil. 609 (1998) — Followed. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest must be made before the accused enters a plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.

• Section 9, Republic Act No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) — Penalizes any person who shall plant, cultivate, or culture Indian hemp or any plant classified as a dangerous drug with reclusion perpetua to death and a fine. Applied to convict Alunday for cultivating marijuana fruiting tops.
• Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court — Allows a peace officer to arrest a person without a warrant when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Applied to justify Alunday's warrantless arrest as he was caught in flagrante delicto.
• Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1866 — Penalizes the unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. Applied in the RTC trial, where Alunday was acquitted of illegal possession of an M16 rifle due to reasonable doubt.

Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Nachura, Reyes