THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249161. September 16, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MICHAEL DAYO Y CATOY @ "PAKNIT'', accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 16, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249161 (People of the Philippines v. Michael Dayo y Catoy @ "Paknit'') — After review of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for lack of merit.
This is an appeal from the June 13, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10974, which affirmed the February 28, 2018 Joint Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 84 (RTC) finding Michael Dayo y Catoy (appellant) guilty of violation of Sections 5 3 and 11, 4 Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 5 in Criminal Case No. 21303 and Criminal Case No. 21304, respectively. In Criminal Case No. 21303 Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the RTC sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, while in Criminal Case No. 21304 Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the RTC sentenced appellant to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
After review of the record, the Court sees no compelling reason to reverse the CA Decision.
On the validity of his arrest, the CA correctly ruled that any question regarding its legality should have been raised prior to arraignment; otherwise, it is deemed waived. In Lapi v. People, 6 citing People v. Alunday, 7 the Court ruled that:
x x x 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. We have also ruled that an accused may be estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the information against him before his arraignment. And since the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, any defect in the arrest of the accused may be deemed cured when he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court. We have also held in a number of cases that the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error; such arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused. 8
Moreover, appellant was arrested without a warrant during a legitimate buy-bust operation. He was caught in flagrante delicto selling marijuana, and the warrantless arrest in such instances is duly authorized by law. Consequently, the search incidental to said warrantless arrest, which resulted in the discovery of several sachets of marijuana in appellant's possession, was likewise proper and the seized items became admissible as evidence against appellant for the offense of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
Lastly, appellant wanted strict compliance with the prescribed procedures in handling the seized items to preserve its integrity and evidentiary value and insisted that the inventory should have been made at the crime scene immediately upon his arrest. However, the police officers' act of conducting the inventory at the police station did not destroy the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. As correctly relied upon by the CA, Section 21, 9 Article II of R.A. 9165 as amended by R.A. 10640 expressly allows the conduct of the physical inventory and the photograph of the proceedings at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizure, as what happened in this case. The prosecution was able to show that the required chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was followed, and that its evidentiary value was preserved from its confiscation until its presentation in court.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The June 13, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10974 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-20; penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 61-65; penned by Presiding Judge Dorcas P. Ferriols-Perez.
3.Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
4.Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxx xxx xxx
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
xxx xxx xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are x x x; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
5. An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes. (June 7, 2002)
6. G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019.
7. 586 Phil. 120 (2008).
8.Id. at 133.
9. Section 1 (1) of R.A. 10640.
SECTION 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
"(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.