3/10/2017 PeoplevsChua:13606667:February4,2003:J.

YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.Nos.13606667.February4,2003]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. BINAD SY CHUA,

accusedappellant.

DECISION
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

AccusedappellantBinadSyChuawaschargedwithviolationofSection16,ArticleIIIofR.A.
6425, as amended by R.A. 7659, and for Illegal Possession of ammunitions in two separate
Informationswhichreadasfollows:
CriminalCaseNo.96507[1]

Thatonoraboutthe21stdayofSeptember1996,intheCityofAngeles,Philippines,andwithinthe
jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyand
feloniouslyhaveinhispossessionandunderhiscontroltwo(2)plasticbagscontainingMethamphetamine
Hydrochloride(SHABU)weighingmoreorlesstwo(2)kilosandone(1)smallplasticbagcontaining
MethamphetamineHydroclorideweighingmoreorlessfifteen(15)grams,whichisaregulateddrug,
withoutanyauthoritywhatsoever.

CriminalCaseNo.96513[2]

Thatonoraboutthe21stdayofSeptember1996,intheCityofAngeles,Philippines,andwithinthe
jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyand
feloniouslyhaveinhispossessionandunderhiscontroltwenty(20)piecesoflive.22cal.ammunitions,
withoutfirsthavingobtainedalicenseorpermittopossessorcarrythesame.

Accusedappellantpleadednotguiltyonarraignment.Thetwocaseswerethenjointlytried.
Theprosecutionpresentedthree(3)witnesses,allmembersofthepoliceforceofAngelesCity.
Theirtestimoniescanbesynthesizedasfollows:
On September 21, 1996, at around 10:00 in the evening, SPO2 Mario Nulud and PO2
EmmeraldoNunagreceivedareportfromtheirconfidentialinformantthataccusedappellantwas
abouttodeliverdrugsthatnightattheThunderInnHotelinBalibago,AngelesCity.Theinformer
furtherreportedthataccusedappellantdistributesillegaldrugsindifferentkaraokebarsinAngeles
City.Onthebasisofthislead,thePNPChiefofAngelesCity,Col.NeopitoGutierrez,immediately
formedateamofoperativescomposedofMajorBernardino,Insp.Tullao,Insp.EmmanuelNunag,
P02EmmeraldoNunag,SP01FernandoGo,andsomecivilianassets,withSPO2MarioNulud,as
team investigator. The group of SPO2 Nulud, PO2 Nunag and the civilian informer positioned
themselves across McArthur Highway near Bali Hai Restaurant, fronting Thunder Inn Hotel. The
othergroupactedastheirbackup.
At around 11:45 in the evening, their informer pointed to a car driven by accusedappellant
whichjustarrivedandparkedneartheentranceoftheThunderInnHotel.Afteraccusedappellant
alighted from the car carrying a sealed ZestO juice box, SPO2 Nulud and PO2 Nunag hurriedly
accosted him and introduced themselves as police officers. As accusedappellant pulled out his
wallet, a small transparent plastic bag with a crystalline substance protruded from his right back
pocket.Forthwith,SPO2Nuludsubjectedhimtoabodysearchwhichyieldedtwenty(20)piecesof
live .22 caliber firearm bullets from his left back pocket. When SPO2 Nunag peeked into the
contentsoftheZestObox,hesawthatitcontainedacrystallinesubstance.SPO2Nuludinstantly
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/feb2003/136066_67.htm 1/9
3/10/2017 PeoplevsChua:13606667:February4,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

confiscatedthesmalltransparentplasticbag,theZestOjuicebox,thetwenty(20)piecesof.22
caliber firearm bullets and the car used by accusedappellant. Afterwards, SPO2 Nulud and the
otherpoliceoperativeswhoarrivedatthescenebroughttheconfiscateditemstotheofficeofCol.
GuttierezatthePNPHeadquartersinCampPepito,AngelesCity.[3]
When Col. Gutierrez opened the sealed ZestO juice box, he found 2 big plastic bags
containingcrystallinesubstances.TheinitialfieldtestconductedbySPO2DaniloCruzatthePNP
Headquartersrevealedthatthesiezeditemscontainedshabu.[4]Thereafter,SPO2Nuludtogether
with accusedappellant brought these items for further laboratory examination to the Crime
LaboratoryatCampOlivas,SanFernando,Pampanga.Afterduetesting,forensicchemistS/Insp.
DaisyBaborconcludedthatthecrystallinesubstancesyieldedpositiveresultsforshabu.Thesmall
plastic bag weighed 13.815 grams while the two big plastic bags weighed 1.942 kilograms of
shabu.[5]
Accusedappellant vehemently denied the accusation against him and narrated a different
versionoftheincident.
Accusedappellantallegedthatonthenightinquestion,hewasdrivingthecarofhiswifeto
followherandhissontoManila.Hefeltsleepy,sohedecidedtotaketheoldroutealongMcArthur
Highway.HestoppedinfrontofasmallstorenearThunderInnHotelinBalibago,AngelesCityto
buycigarettesandcandies.Whileatthestore,henoticedamanapproachandexaminetheinside
of his car. When he called the attention of the onlooker, the man immediately pulled out a .45
calibergunandmadehimfacehiscarwithraisedhands.Themanlateronidentifiedhimselfasa
policeman.Duringthecourseofthearrest,thepolicemantookouthiswalletandinstructedhimto
openhiscar.Herefused,sothepolicemantookhiscarkeysandproceededtosearchhiscar.At
this time, the police officers companions arrived at the scene in two cars. PO2 Nulud, who just
arrivedatthescene,pulledhimawayfromhiscarinanearbybank,whiletheotherssearchedhis
car.
Thereafter,hewasbroughttotheSalakotPoliceStationandwasheldinsideabathroomfor
about fifteen minutes until Col. Guttierez arrived, who ordered his men to call the media. In the
presenceofreporters,Col.Guttierezopenedtheboxandaccusedappellantwasmadetoholdthe
boxwhilepictureswerebeingtaken.[6]
Wilfredo Lagman corroborated the story of the accusedappellant in its material points. He
testified that he witnessed the incident while he was conducting a routine security check around
thepremisesoftheGuessBuilding,nearThunderInnHotel.[7]
On September 15, 1998 the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 59, rendered a
decision,[8]thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE,theforegoingconsidered,judgementisherebyrenderedasfollows:

1.InCriminalCaseNo.96513forIllegalPossessionofAmmunitions,theaccusedisherebyacquittedofthe
crimechargedforinsufficiencyofevidence.

2.InCriminalCaseNo.96507forIllegalPossessionof1,955.815gramsofshabu,accusedBinadSyChua
isfoundGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimechargeandisherebysentencedtosufferthepenalty
ofreclusionperpetuaandtopayafineofOneMillion(P1,000,000.00)Pesos.

SOORDERED.[9]

Hence,theinstantappealwhereaccusedappellantraisedthefollowingerrors:

THETRIALCOURTERREDGRAVELYINITSFOLLOWINGFINDINGS:

A.THEARRESTOFACCUSEDAPPELLANTBINADSYCHUAWASLAWFUL

B.THESEARCHOFHISPERSONANDTHESUBSEQUENTCONFISCATIONOFSHABU
ALLEGEDLYFOUNDONHIMWERECONDUCTEDINALAWFULANDVALIDMANNER

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/feb2003/136066_67.htm 2/9
3/10/2017 PeoplevsChua:13606667:February4,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

C.THEPROSECUTIONEVIDENCESUPPORTINGTHECRIMECHARGEDISSUFICIENTTO
PROVETHEGUILTOFTHEACCUSEDAPPELLANTBEYONDREAONABLEDOUBT.[10]

Accusedappellant maintains that the warrantless arrest and search made by the police
operativeswasunlawfulthatinthelightofthetestimonyofSPO2Nuludthatpriortohisarresthe
hasbeenundersurveillancefortwoyears,therewasthereforenocompellingreasonforthehaste
withinwhichthearrestingofficerssoughttoarrestandsearchhimwithoutawarrantthatthepolice
officershadsufficientinformationabouthimandcouldhaveeasilyarrestedhim.Accusedappellant
furtherarguesthatsincehisarrestwasnullanvoid,thedrugsthatwereseizedshouldlikewisebe
inadmissible in evidence since they were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against
unreasonablesearchandseizuresandarrest.
Accusedappellantsargumentisimpressedwithmerit.
Although the trial courts evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is
entitledtogreatrespectandwillnotbedisturbedonappeal,however,thisruleisnotahardand
fastone.

Itisatimehonoredrulethattheassessmentofthetrialcourtwithregardtothecredibilityofwitnesses
deservestheutmostrespect,ifnotfinality,forthereasonthatthetrialjudgehastheprerogative,deniedto
appellatejudges,ofobservingthedemeanorofthedeclarantsinthecourseoftheirtestimonies.Theonly
exceptionisifthereisashowingthatthetrialjudgeoverlooked,misunderstood,ormisappliedsomefactor
circumstanceofweightandsubstancethatwouldhaveaffectedthecase.[11]

Inthecaseatbar,thereappearsonrecordsomefactsofweightandsubstancethathavebeen
overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court which casts doubt on the guilt of
accusedappellant.Anappealinacriminalcaseopensthewholecaseforreviewandthisincludes
thereviewofthepenaltyandindemnityimposedbythetrialcourt.[12]We are clothedwith ample
authoritytoreviewmatters,eventhosenotraisedonappeal,ifwefindthattheirconsiderationis
necessaryinarrivingatajustdispositionofthecase.Everycircumstanceinfavoroftheaccused
shallbeconsidered.[13]Thisisinkeepingwiththeconstitutionalmandatethateveryaccusedshall
bepresumedinnocentunlesshisguiltisprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt.
First, with respect to the warrantless arrest and consequent search and seizure made upon
accusedappellant,thecourtaquomadethefollowingfindings:

Accusedwassearchedandarrestedwhileinpossessionofregulateddrugs(shabu).Acrimewasactually
beingcommittedbytheaccusedandhewascaughtinflagrantedelicto.Thus,thesearchmadeuponhis
personaleffectsxxxallowawarrantlesssearchincidenttoalawfularrest.xxxx

Whileitistruethatthepoliceofficerswerenotarmedwithasearchwarrantwhenthesearchwasmadeover
thepersonalaffects(sic)oftheaccused,however,underthecircumstancesofthecase,therewassufficient
probablecauseforsaidofficerstobelievethataccusedwasthenandtherecommittingacrime.

xxxxxxxxx

Inthepresentcase,thepolicereceivedinformationthattheaccusedwilldistributeillegaldrugsthatevening
attheThunderInnHotelanditsvicinities.Thepoliceofficerhadtoactquicklyandtherewasnomoretime
tosecureasearchwarrant.Thesearchisvalidbeingakintoastopandfrisk.[14]

A thorough review of the evidence on record belies the findings and conclusion of the trial
court.Itconfusedthetwodifferentconceptsofasearchincidentaltoalawfularrest(in flagrante
delicto)andofastopandfrisk.
InMalacatv.CourtofAppeals,[15]we distinguished the concepts of a stopandfrisk and of a
searchincidentaltoalawfularrest,towit:

Attheoutset,wenotethatthetrialcourtconfusedtheconceptsofastopandfriskandofasearchincidental
toalawfularrest.Thesetwotypesofwarrantlesssearchesdifferintermsoftherequisitequantumofproof
beforetheymaybevalidlyeffectedandintheirallowablescope.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/feb2003/136066_67.htm 3/9
3/10/2017 PeoplevsChua:13606667:February4,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

Inasearchincidentaltoalawfularrest,astheprecedentarrestdeterminesthevalidityoftheincidental
search,thelegalityofthearrestisquestionedinalargemajorityofthesecases,e.g.,whetheranarrestwas
merelyusedasapretextforconductingasearch.Inthisinstance,thelawrequiresthattherefirstbearrest
beforeasearchcanbemadetheprocesscannotbereversed.Atbottom,assumingavalidarrest,the
arrestingofficermaysearchthepersonofthearresteeandtheareawithinwhichthelattermayreachfora
weaponorforevidencetodestroy,andseizeanymoneyorpropertyfoundwhichwasusedinthe
commissionofthecrime,orthefruitofthecrime,orthatwhichmaybeusedasevidence,orwhichmight
furnishthearresteewiththemeansofescapingorcommittingviolence.

xxxxxxxxx

Wenowproceedtothejustificationforandallowablescopeofastopandfriskasalimitedprotective
searchofouterclothingforweapons,aslaiddowninTerry,thus:

Wemerelyholdtodaythatwhereapoliceofficerobservesunusualconductwhichleadshimreasonablyto
concludeinlightofhisexperiencethatcriminalactivitymaybeafootandthatthepersonswithwhomheis
dealingmaybearmedandpresentlydangerous,whereinthecourseofinvestigatingthisbehaviorhe
identifieshimselfasapolicemanandmakesreasonableinquiries,andwherenothingintheinitialstages
oftheencounterservestodispelhisreasonablefearforhisownorotherssafety,heisentitledforthe
protectionofhimselfandothersintheareatoconductacarefullylimitedsearchoftheouterclothingofsuch
personsinanattempttodiscoverweaponswhichmightbeusedtoassaulthim.Suchasearchisareasonable
searchundertheFourthamendment.

OthernotablepointsofTerryarethatwhileprobablecauseisnotrequiredtoconductastopandfrisk,it
neverthelessholdsthatmeresuspicionorahunchwillnotvalidateastopandfrisk.Agenuinereason
mustexist,inlightofthepoliceofficersexperienceandsurroundingconditions,towarrantthebelief
thatthepersondetainedhasweaponsconcealedabouthim.Finally,astopandfriskservesatwofold
interest:(1)thegeneralinterestofeffectivecrimepreventionanddetection,whichunderliestherecognition
thatapoliceofficermay,underappropriatecircumstancesandinanappropriatemanner,approachaperson
forpurposesofinvestigatingpossiblecriminalbehaviorevenwithoutprobablecauseand(2)themore
pressinginterestofsafetyandselfpreservationwhichpermitthepoliceofficertotakestepstoassurehimself
thatthepersonwithwhomhedealsisnotarmedwithadeadlyweaponthatcouldunexpectedlyandfatally
beusedagainstthepoliceofficer.[16](Emphasisours)

Inthecaseatbar,neithertheinflagrantedelictonorthestopandfriskprinciplesisapplicable
tojustifythewarrantlessarrestandconsequentsearchandseizuremadebythepoliceoperatives
onaccusedappellant.
In in flagrante delicto arrests, the accused is apprehended at the very moment he is
committing or attempting to commit or has just committed an offense in the presence of the
arresting officer. Emphasis should be laid on the fact that the law requires that the search be
incidental to a lawful arrest. Therefore it is beyond cavil that a lawful arrest must precede the
search of a person and his belongings.[17] Accordingly, for this exception to apply two elements
mustconcur:(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
doneinthepresenceorwithintheviewofthearrestingofficer.[18]
Wefindthetwoaforementionedelementslackinginthecaseatbar.Therecordrevealsthat
whenaccusedappellantarrivedatthevicinityofThunderInnHotel,hemerelyparkedhiscaralong
theMcArthurHighway,alightedfromitandcasuallyproceededtowardstheentranceoftheHotel
clutchingasealedZestOjuicebox.Accusedappellantdidnotactinasuspiciousmanner.Forall
intentsandpurposes,therewasnoovertmanifestationthataccusedappellanthasjustcommitted,
isactuallycommitting,orisattemptingtocommitacrime.
However,notwithstandingtheabsenceofanyovertactstronglymanifestingaviolationofthe
law, the group of SPO2 Nulud hurriedly accosted[19] accusedappellant and later on introduced
themselves as police officers.[20] Accusedappellant was arrested before the alleged dropoff of
shabu was done. Probable cause in this case was more imagined than real. Thus, there could
have been no in flagrante delicto arrest preceding the search, in light of the lack of an overt
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/feb2003/136066_67.htm 4/9
3/10/2017 PeoplevsChua:13606667:February4,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

physical act on the part of accusedappellant that he had committed a crime, was committing a
crimeorwasgoingtocommitacrime.Asappliedtoinflagrantedelictoarrests,ithasbeen held
that reliable information alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the
presenceandwithintheviewofthearrestingofficers,isnotsufficienttoconstituteprobablecause
thatwouldjustifyaninflagrantedelictoarrest.[21]Hence,inPeoplev.Aminudin,[22]weruledthatthe
accusedappellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it
shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was
descendingthegangplankoftheM/VWilcon9andtherewasnooutwardindicationthatcalledfor
hisarrest.To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking
fromthevessel.Itwasonlywhentheinformerpointedtohimasthecarrierofthemarijuana
thathesuddenlybecamesuspectandsosubjecttoapprehension(Emphasissupplied).
The reliance of the prosecution in People v. Tangliben[23] to justify the polices actions is
misplaced. In the said case, based on the information supplied by informers, police officers
conducted a surveillance at the Victory Liner Terminal compound in San Fernando, Pampanga
againstpersonswhomaycommitmisdemeanorsandalsoonthosewhomaybeengagedinthe
trafficofdangerousdrugs.At9:30intheevening,thepolicemennoticedapersoncarryingared
travellingbagwhowasactingsuspiciously.Theyconfrontedhimandrequestedhimtoopenhis
bagbutherefused.Heaccededlateronwhenthepolicemenidentifiedthemselves.Insidethebag
were marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic wrapper. The police officers only knew of the
activitiesofTanglibenonthenightofhisarrest.
In the instant case, the apprehending policemen already had prior knowledge from the very
sameinformantofaccusedappellantsactivities.NolessthanSPO2MarioNulud,theteamleader
ofthearrestingoperatives,admittedthattheirinformanthasbeentellingthemabouttheactivities
ofaccusedappellantfortwoyearspriortohisactualarrestonSeptember21,1996.Anexcerptof
the testimony of SPO2 Mario Nulud reveals the illegality of the arrest of accusedappellant as
follows:
Q.Didthecivilianinformerofyoursmentionedtoyouthenameofthischinesedrugpusher?
A.HeismentioningthenameofBinadorJojoChua.
Q.AndhehadbeenmentioningthesenamestoyouevenbeforeSeptember21,1996?
A.Yes,sir.
Q.Howlongdidthiscivilianinformanthavebeentellingyouabouttheactivitiesofthischinesedrug
pusherreckoninginrelationtoSeptember21,1996?
A.Thatwasabouttwoyearsalready.
Q.Nothwithstandinghistwoyearspersonalknowledgewhichyougainedfromthecivilianinformant
thatthischinesedrugpusherhavebeenengagedpushingdrugshereinAngelesCity,youdid
notthinkofapplyingforasearchwarrantforthischinesedrugpusher?
A.No,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
Q.WhenyouaccostedthisBinadChua,hewascasuallywalkingalongtheroadneartheThunder
InnHotel,isthatright?
A.Hewaspinpointedbythecivilianinformerthatheisthechinesedrugpusherthatwilldeliverto
himalso.
Q.My question Mr. Witness, is this Jojo Chua or Binad Chua the accused in this case he alighted
withaCorollacarwithplatenumber999,Ithink,hejustalightedwhenyousawhim?
A.Yes,sir.
Q.Fromthecarwhenhealighted,hecasuallywalkedtowardsneartheentranceoftheThunderInn
Hotel?
A.HewasabouttoproceedtowardsThunderInnHotelbuthewaspinpointedalreadybythecivilian
informer.
Q.ButhewasjustwalkingtowardstheentranceoftheThunderInnHotel?

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/feb2003/136066_67.htm 5/9
3/10/2017 PeoplevsChua:13606667:February4,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

A.Yes,sir,heisabouttoenterThunderInnHotel.
xxxxxxxxx
Q.Whilehewaswalking,thenyouandPO2Nunagpouncedonhimasyouusedpouncedonhimin
youraffidavit?
A.Yes,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
Q.AndyoupouncedonJojoChuabeforeyousawthatallegedsmallplasticbag,isthatcorrect?
A.Yes,sir.
Q.AndafterthatyoualsoconfiscatedthisZestojuicebox?
A.Yes,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
Q.Butwouldyouagreewithmethatnotallcrystallinesubstanceisshabu?
A.No,thatisshabuanditisbeenalongtimethatwehavebeentailingtheaccusedthatheisreally
adrugpusher.
Q.Soyouhavebeentailingthisaccusedforquitealongtimethatyouareverysurethatwhatwas
broughtbyhimwasshabu?
A.Yes,sir.[24]
The police operatives cannot feign ignorance of the alleged illegal activities of accused
appellant.Consideringthattheidentity,addressandactivitiesofthesuspectedculpritwasalready
ascertained two years previous to the actual arrest, there was indeed no reason why the police
officers could not have obtained a judicial warrant before arresting accusedappellant and
searching his person. Whatever information their civilian asset relayed to them hours before
accusedappellants arrest was not a product of an onthespot tip which may excuse them from
obtaining a warrant of arrest. Accordingly, the arresting teams contention that their arrest of
accusedappellantwasaproductofanonthespottipisuntenable.
In the same vein, there could be no valid stopandfrisk in this case. A stopandfrisk was
definedastheactofapoliceofficertostopacitizenonthestreet,interrogatehim,andpathimfor
weapon(s)[25]orcontraband.Thepoliceofficershouldproperlyintroducehimselfandmakeinitial
inquiries,approachandrestrainapersonwhomanifestsunusualandsuspiciousconduct,inorder
to check the latters outer clothing for possibly concealed weapons.[26] The apprehending police
officer must have a genuine reason, in accordance with the police officers experience and the
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to be held has weapons (or
contraband)concealedabouthim.[27]Itshouldthereforebeemphasizedthatasearchandseizure
shouldprecedethearrestforthisprincipletoapply.[28]
ThisprincipleofstopandfrisksearchwasinvokedbytheCourtinManaliliv.CourtofAppeals.
[29]
In said case, the policemen chanced upon the accused who had reddish eyes, walking in a
swaying manner, and who appeared to be high on drugs. Thus, we upheld the validity of the
searchasakintoastopandfrisk.InPeoplev.Solayao,[30]wealsofoundjustifiablereasontostop
andfrisktheaccusedafterconsideringthefollowingcircumstances:thedrunkenactuationsofthe
accusedandhiscompanions,thefactthathiscompanionsfledwhentheysawthepolicemen,and
the fact that the peace officers were precisely on an intelligence mission to verify reports that
armedpersonswhereroamingthevicinity.
The foregoing circumstances do not obtain in the case at bar.There was no valid stopand
friskinthecaseofaccusedappellant.Toreiterate,accusedappellantwasfirstarrestedbeforethe
searchandseizureoftheallegedillegalitemsfoundinhispossession.Theapprehendingpolice
operative failed to make any initial inquiry into accusedappellants business in the vicinity or the
contentsoftheZestOjuiceboxhewascarrying.Theapprehendingpoliceofficersonlyintroduced
themselveswhentheyalreadyhadcustodyofaccusedappellant.Besides,atthetimeofhisarrest,
accusedappellantdidnotexhibitmanifestunusualandsuspiciousconductreasonableenoughto

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/feb2003/136066_67.htm 6/9
3/10/2017 PeoplevsChua:13606667:February4,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

dispense with the procedure outlined by jurisprudence and the law. There was, therefore, no
genuinereasonablegroundfortheimmediacyofaccusedappellantsarrest.
Obviously,theactsofthepoliceoperativeswhollydependedontheinformationgiventothem
bytheirconfidentialinformant.Accordingly,beforeandduringthattimeofthearrest,thearresting
officershadnopersonalknowledgethataccusedappellanthadjustcommitted,wascommitting,or
wasabouttocommitacrime.
At any rate, even if the fact of delivery of the illegal drugs actually occurred, accused
appellants warrantless arrest and consequent search would still not be deemed a valid stopand
frisk.Foravalidstopandfriskthesearchandseizuremustprecedethearrest,whichisnotsoin
this case. Besides, as we have earlier emphasized, the information about the illegal activities of
accusedappellantwasnotunknowntotheapprehendingofficers.Hence,thesearchandseizure
oftheprohibiteddrugscannotbedeemedasavalidstopandfrisk.
Neither can there be valid seizure in plain view on the basis of the seized items found in
accusedappellantspossession.First,therewasnovalidintrusion.Second,theevidence,i.e.,the
plasticbagsfoundintheZestOjuiceboxwhichcontainedcrystallinesubstanceslateronidentified
asmethamphetaminehydrochloride(shabu)andthe20roundsof.22caliberammunition,werenot
inadvertently discovered. The police officers first arrested accusedappellant and intentionally
searchedhispersonandpeekedintothesealedZestOjuiceboxbeforetheywereabletoseeand
lateronascertainthatthecrystallinesubstancewasshabu.Therewasnoclearshowingthatthe
sealed ZestO juice box accusedappellant carried contained prohibited drugs. Neither were the
smallplasticbagswhichallegedlycontainedcrystallinesubstanceandthe20roundsof.22caliber
ammunition visible. These prohibited substances were not in plain view of the arresting officers
hence,inadmissibleforbeingthefruitsofthepoisonoustree.
Inlikemanner,thesearchcannotbecategorizedasasearchofamovingvehicle,aconsented
warrantless search, or a customs search. It cannot even fall under exigent and emergency
circumstances,fortheevidenceathandisbereftofanysuchshowing.
Alltold,theabsenceofillmotiveonthepartofthearrestingteamcannotsimplyvalidate,much
more cure, the illegality of the arrest and consequent warrantless search of accusedappellant.
Neithercanthepresumptionofregularityofperformanceoffunctionbeinvokedbyanofficerinaid
of the process when he undertakes to justify an encroachment of rights secured by the
Constitution.[31]InPeoplev.Nubla,[32]weclearlystatedthat:

Thepresumptionofregularityintheperformanceofofficialdutycannotbeusedasbasisforaffirming
accusedappellantsconvictionbecause,first,thepresumptionispreciselyjustthatamerepresumption.Once
challengedbyevidence,asinthiscase,xxx[it]cannotberegardedasbindingtruth.Second,thepresumption
ofregularityintheperformanceofofficialfunctionscannotpreponderateoverthepresumptionofinnocence
thatprevailsifnotoverthrownbyproofbeyondreasonabledoubt.

Furthermore,weentertaindoubtswhethertheitemsallegedlyseizedfromaccusedappellant
weretheverysameitemspresentedatthetrialofthiscase.Therecordshowsthattheinitialfield
testwheretheitemsseizedwereidentifiedasshabu,wasonlyconductedatthePNPheadquarters
ofAngelesCity.[33]The items were therefore not marked at the place where they were taken. In
Peoplev.Casimiro,[34]westruckdownwithdisbeliefthereliabilityoftheidentityoftheconfiscated
itemssincetheywerenotmarkedattheplacewheretheywereseized,thus:

Thenarcoticsfieldtest,whichinitiallyidentifiedtheseizeditemasmarijuana,waslikewisenotconductedat
thesceneofthecrime,butonlyatthenarcoticsoffice.Thereisthusreasonabledoubtastowhethertheitem
allegedlyseizedfromaccusedappellantisthesamebrickofmarijuanamarkedbythepolicemenintheir
headquartersandgivenbythemtothecrimelaboratory.

Thegovernmentsdriveagainstillegaldrugsneedsthesupportofeverycitizen.Butitshould
not undermine the fundamental rights of every citizen as enshrined in the Constitution. The
constitutional guarantee against warrantless arrests and unreasonable searches and seizures
cannot be so carelessly disregarded as overzealous police officers are sometimes wont to do.
Fealty to the constitution and the rights it guarantees should be paramount in their minds,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/feb2003/136066_67.htm 7/9
3/10/2017 PeoplevsChua:13606667:February4,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

otherwise their good intentions will remain as such simply because they have blundered. The
criminalgoesfree,ifhemust,butitisthelawthatsetshimfree.Nothingcandestroyagovernment
morequicklythanitsfailuretoobserveitsownlaws,orworse,itsdisregardofthecharterofitsown
existence.[35]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles
City, Branch 59, in Criminal Cases Nos. 96507 and 96513, convicting accusedappellant Binad
SyChuaofviolationofSection16,ArticleIII,RepublicActNo.6425andsentencinghimtosuffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00, is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accusedappellant Binad Sy Chua is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Consequently, he is ordered forthwith released from custody, unless he is being lawfully held for
anothercrime.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Vitug,CarpioandAzcuna.JJ.,concur.

[1]Records,Volume1,p.1.

[2]Ibid.,p.12.

[3]TSN,January7,1998,pp.410TSN,April21,1998,pp.59.

[4]TSN,April21,1998,pp.910.

[5]Records,Vol.2,p.306.

[6]TSN,July2,1998,pp.38.

[7]TSN,August5,1998,pp.519.

[8]PennedbyJudgeEliezerR.DeLosSantosnowAssociateJusticeoftheCourtofAppeals.

[9]Rollo,p.26.

[10]Ibid.,pp.4041.

[11]People v. Alvarado, G.R. No. 145730, March 19, 2002, citing People v. De Los Santos, 355 SCRA 301 (2001)
Peoplev.Osing,349SCRA310(2001).
[12]Peoplev.Leones,G.R.Nos.128514&14385661,October3,2001.

[13]Peoplev.Manambit,271SCRA344,385386(1997),citingHeirsofCrisantaY.GabrielAlmoradiev.CA,229SCRA
15(1994)andPeoplev.Villagracia,226SCRA374,381(1993).
[14]Rollo,pp.470,473474RTCDecision,pp.7,1011.

[15]283SCRA159(1997).

[16]Ibid,pp.175177.

[17]Peoplev.Aruta,288SCRA626,643(1998).

[18]ConcurringOpinionofJusticeArtemioV.PanganibaninPeoplev.Doria,301SCRA668,720(1999).

[19]TSN,January7,1998,p.8.

[20]Ibid.

[21]Peoplev.Molina,352SCRA174,183(2001).

[22]163SCRA402,409410(1988).

[23]184SCRA220,221222(1990).

[24]TSN,January27,1998,pp.813.

[25]Manaliliv.CA,280SCRA400,411(1997).

[26]ConcurringOpinionofJusticeArtemioPanganibaninPeoplev.Doria,301SCRA668,729(1999).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/feb2003/136066_67.htm 8/9
3/10/2017 PeoplevsChua:13606667:February4,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision
[27]Malacatv.CA,supra,p.177.

[28]Posadasv.CA,188SCRA288,292(1990).

[29]280SCRA400(1997).

[30]262SCRA255(1996).

[31]Peoplev.Salanguit,356SCRA683,702(2001),citingNolascov.Pao,139SCRA152(1985).

[32]G.R.No.129376,May29,2002,citingPeoplev.Ruiz,G.R.Nos.135679and137375,October10,2001.

[33]TSN,January7,1998,pp.1012.

[34]G.R.No.146277,June20,2002.

[35]Peoplev.Sagaysay,308SCRA432,454(1999).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/feb2003/136066_67.htm 9/9