People vs. Rivera

An objection to an illegal arrest is deemed waived if not raised before arraignment, and non-compliance with the inventory and photography requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is not fatal provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

A civilian agent reported that a certain "Kirat" was openly selling prohibited drugs in Villa Reyes St., Barangay Bambang, Pasig City. Acting on this information, the Pasig City Police formed a buy-bust team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) to apprehend the suspect on March 13, 2003.

• The Buy-Bust Operation: On March 13, 2003, a police team led by SPO4 Buenconsejo, with PO3 Salisa as poseur-buyer, proceeded to the target area. PO3 Salisa was provided with two marked P100 bills. The informant pointed out appellant, known as "Kirat," to PO3 Salisa from a distance of five meters.
• The Sale and Arrest: The informant introduced PO3 Salisa as a shabu buyer. PO3 Salisa handed the marked bills to appellant, who in turn handed over two heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO3 Salisa then removed his cap as a pre-arranged signal, prompting the team to close in and arrest appellant. The seized sachets were immediately marked by PO3 Salisa at the scene.
• Laboratory Examination: Appellant was brought to the hospital for a physical check-up and then to the police station. P/Insp. Villaruel transmitted the sachets to the EPD-PNP Crime Laboratory on the same day. Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Gural examined the items and issued Chemistry Report No. D-455-03-E, confirming that the sachets each contained 0.04 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
• Defense Version: Appellant claimed frame-up and extortion. He alleged he was merely walking to his mother’s house when two police officers accosted, handcuffed, and dragged him into a van. The officers allegedly tried to extort P200,000 (later reduced to P20,000) for his release and charged him when he could not pay. A defense witness corroborated seeing the appellant handcuffed and dragged by officers near a van.

• Illegality of Arrest: Appellant argued that his warrantless arrest was illegal because none of the exceptions under the Rules of Court were present at the time of his apprehension.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Appellant contended that the lower courts erred in relying on the prosecution's evidence, maintaining that the charges were fabricated and stemmed from an extortion attempt by the arresting officers.

• Validity of Arrest: Whether the warrantless arrest of the appellant was valid despite the absence of a warrant.
• Waiver of Objection: Whether the appellant waived any objection to the legality of his arrest by failing to raise it before arraignment.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the failure to strictly comply with the inventory and photography requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 invalidates the conviction.

• Validity of Arrest: The warrantless arrest was justified under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court, appellant having been caught in the act of selling illegal drugs in the presence of the poseur-buyer.
• Waiver of Objection: Any objection to an illegal arrest is deemed waived when the accused fails to raise it before arraignment and voluntarily submits to the court's jurisdiction by entering a plea and actively participating in the trial.
• Chain of Custody: Non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is not fatal to the prosecution's case provided there is justifiable ground and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The defense's failure to question the custody and disposition of the items at any stage, coupled with the absence of any showing that the items were compromised, sustains the conviction.

• Waiver of Objection to Illegal Arrest — Any objection based on an illegal arrest must be made before the accused enters a plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived by voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction and active participation in the trial. The Court applied this doctrine because appellant failed to question the legality of his arrest before arraignment or in his petition for bail, instead actively presenting evidence for his defense.
• In Flagrante Delicto Arrest — A peace officer may 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. The Court applied this principle to uphold the warrantless arrest, as appellant was caught in the act of peddling illegal drugs during the buy-bust operation.
• Non-fatal Non-compliance with Section 21, R.A. 9165 — Non-compliance by the apprehending team with the inventory and photography requirements of Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved. The Court applied this doctrine because the seized items were immediately marked, transmitted to the crime laboratory within hours, and the defense never questioned their custody or integrity at any stage of the proceedings.

• "It is long settled that where the accused, by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, as shown by the counsel-assisted plea he entered during the arraignment and his active participation in the trial thereafter, voluntarily waives his constitutional protection against illegal arrests and searches."
• "Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."

• People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87 (July 7, 2004) — Followed. Modified the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure to require intermediate review by the Court of Appeals for cases imposing death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment before elevation to the Supreme Court.
• Buenaventura v. People, G.R. No. 171578 (August 8, 2007) — Followed. Cited for the doctrine that failure to object to an illegal arrest before arraignment constitutes a waiver of the constitutional protection against illegal arrests and searches.
• People v. Bagsit, G.R. No. 148877 (August 19, 2003) — Followed. Origin of the waiver doctrine regarding objections to illegal arrests cited in Buenaventura.
• People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928 (August 31, 2007) — Followed. Established that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is not fatal provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Prohibits the sale, delivery, and distribution of dangerous drugs. Appellant was charged and convicted under this section for selling methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
• Section 21.1, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Prescribes the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs, requiring immediate physical inventory and photograph in the presence of the accused, media, DOJ, and elected public officials. The Court ruled that non-compliance is not fatal if the integrity of the items is preserved.
• Rule 113, Section 5(a), Rules of Court — Justifies warrantless arrests when a person is caught in the act of committing an offense. Applied to uphold the validity of appellant's arrest during the buy-bust operation.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad.