The Pasig City Police Station conducted an alleged drug buy-bust operation that resulted in the seizure of illegal drugs and confiscation from the accused, Jesus, 0.38 caliber revolver loaded with six (6) live ammunitions tucked at his back, as well as a 0.22 caliber rifle loaded with seven (7) live ammunitions and two (2) magazines (subject firearms and ammunition) which were found beside the gate of his house. Not being able to present documentation for the firearms, Jesus, aside from being charged with violation of RA 9165 with respect to the confiscated drugs, was also charged with violation of RA 10591 (Illegal possession of firearms and ammunition).
During trial, Jesus denied the allegations against him, claiming that aside from the present case, he was also charged with the crime of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs, which arose from the same incident, but was, however, acquittedtherein for, inter alia, failure of the prosecution to prove that Trinidad was validly arrested thru a legitimate buy-bust operation. He included the decision in the drugs case as part of his formal offer of evidence, to which the prosecution objected.
The RTC, however, convicted him for violation of RA 10591. The CA affirmed the RTC decision that Trinidad’s acquittal in the drugs charges was due to the prosecution’s failure to prove the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, and not due to his supposed questionable arrest.
The Issue:
Whether or not the accused should be acquitted in view of his acquittal in the drugs case which arose from the same incident as the seizure of the firearms subject of the case.
The Ruling:
The petition is meritorious.
“At the outset, it must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court’s decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.”
“Section 2,Article III of the 1987 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, such search and seizure becomes ‘unreasonable’ within the meaning of said constitutional provision. To protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. In other words, evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.”
“One of the recognized exceptions to the need for a warrant before a search may be affected is a search incidental to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made – the process cannot be reversed.”
A lawful arrest may be affected with or without a warrant. With respect to the latter, a warrantless arrest may be done when, inter alia, the accused is caught in flagrante delicto,such as in buy-bust operations in drugs cases.However, if the existence of a valid buy-bust operation cannot be proven, and thus, the validity of the in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest cannot be established, the arrest becomes illegal and the consequent search incidental thereto becomes unreasonable. Resultantly, all the evidence seized by reason of the unlawful arrest is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
In this case, Trinidad essentially anchors his defense on the following contentions: (a) his arrest stemmed from a purported buy-bust operation where the illegal drugs and the subject firearms and ammunition were allegedly recovered from him; (b) this resulted in the filing of three (3) Informations against him, two (2) of which are for violations of RA 9165(which were tried jointly), while the other pertains to the instant case; and (c) his acquittal in the drugs cases should necessarily result in his acquittal in this case as well. In finding these contentions untenable, the courts a quo opined that the resolution in the drugs cases is immaterial in this case as they involve different crimesand that “the ground for the acquittal x x x is neither unlawful arrest nor unlawful search or seizure, but the procedural flaw in the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs.”
However, a more circumspect review of the decision absolving Trinidad of criminal liability in the drugs cases reveals that he was acquitted therein not only due to unjustified deviations from the chain of custody rule, but also on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a valid buy-bust operation, thereby rendering Trinidad’s in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest illegal and the subsequent search on him unreasonable.Thus, contrary to the courts a quo’s opinions, Trinidad’s acquittal in the drugs cases, more particularly on the latter ground, is material to this case because the subject firearms and ammunition were simultaneously recovered from him when he was searched subsequent to his arrest on account of the buy-bust operation.
The Court is aware that the findings on the illegality of Trinidad’s warrantless arrest were made in the drugs cases, which are separate and distinct from the present illegal possession of firearms and ammunition case. Nevertheless, the Court is not precluded from taking judicial notice of such findings as evidence, and apply them altogether for the judicious resolution of the same issue which was duly raised herein. To be sure, the general rule is that the courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases. However, this rule admits of exceptions, such as when the other case has a close connection with the matter in controversy in the case at hand.In Bongato v. Spouses Malvar,the Court held:
[A]s a general rule, courts do not take judicial notice of the evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge. There are exceptions to this rule. Ordinarily, an appellate court cannot refer to the record in another case to ascertain a fact not shown in the record of the case before it, yet, it has been held that it may consult decisions in other proceedings, in order to look for the law that is determinative of or applicable to the case under review. In some instances, courts have also taken judicial notice of proceedings in other cases that are closely connected to the matter in controversy. These cases “may be so closely interwoven, or so clearly interdependent, as to invoke a rule of judicial notice.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Here, an examination of the ruling in the drugs cases (which Trinidad offered as evidence and the RTC admitted as part of his testimony) confirms that the drugs cases and this case are so interwoven and interdependent of each other since, as mentioned, the drugs, as well as the subject firearms and ammunition, were illegally seized in a singular instance, i.e., the buy-bust operation. Hence, the Court may take judicial notice of the circumstances attendant to the buy-bust operation as found by the court which resolved the drugs cases. To recall, in the drugs cases, the finding of unreasonableness of search and seizure of the drugs was mainly based on the failure of PO1 Sanoy’s testimony to establish the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation against Trinidad as said testimony was found to be highly doubtful and incredible. This circumstance similarly obtains here as in fact, the testimonies of both PO1 Nidoy[50] and PO1 Sanoy in this case essentially just mirror on all material points the latter’s implausible narration in the drugs cases. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the subject firearms and ammunition are also inadmissible in evidence for being recovered from the same unreasonable search and seizure as in the drugs cases. Since the confiscated firearms and ammunition are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged in this case, Trinidad’s acquittal is in order.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 25, 2018 and the Resolution dated May 31, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39598 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Jesus Trinidad y Bersamin is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.
SO ORDERED.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Carpio, Senior Associate Justice (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando,[*] JJ., concur.
G. R. No. 239957, February 18, 2019, JESUS TRINIDAD Y BERSAMIN, PETITIONER, V. THE PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
Citations omitted.
SEE ALSO: