CASE DIGEST: Lapi v. People of the Philippines

SIMEON LAPI Y MAHIPUS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

G.R. No. 210731

February 13, 2019

Doctrine: Warrantless arrest; review under rule 45

Facts:

On or about the 17^th day of April, 2006, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines,  Lapi, Allen Sacare (Sacare), and Kenneth Lim (Lim),   were charged with violation of Article II, Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 after they were caught  ingesting and introducing to their bodies a dangerous drug known as methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

According to the prosecution, at around 1:50 p.m. on April 17, 2006, operatives of the Bacolod City Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Group conducted a stake-out operation in Purok Sigay, Barangay 2, Bacolod City. During the operation PO2 Villeran heard noises from one of the houses. He "peeped through its window" and saw Lapi, Sacare, and Lim "having a pot session."

PO2 Villeran tried to enter the house through the main door, but the door was locked. He then tried to enter through the kitchen door. Upon entry, he met someone trying to flee, but PO2 Villeran restrained the person.

Then, PO2 Villeran "peeked into the adjacent room" and saw that the pot session was ongoing. He entered the room and introduced himself as a police officer. Lapi, Sacare, and Lim tried to escape, but were caught b PO2 Villeran's team members, who were waiting by the main door.

In his defense, Lapi alleged that on April 17, 2006, he was in Purok Sigay, Barangay 2, Bacolod City to deliver a mahjong set to a certain Antonio Kadunggo. On his way home, two persons approached him and searched his pocket. They took his money, handcuffed him, and boarded him on a tricycle with four other persons whom he did not know.

Lapi stated that upon reaching the Taculing Police Headquarters, he and the others were subjected to a drug test. They were then escorted to their detention cell without being informed of the test results. Rolando Cordova, a barbecue vendor in the area, corroborated Lapi's testimony.

On arraignment, Lapi, Sacare, and Lim pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. At pre-trial, Sacare and Lim changed their pleas to guilty, and were sentenced to rehabilitation for six months at a government-recognized center. Only Lapi was subjected to trial on the merits.

In its September 15, 2010 Decision, the Regional Trial Court found Lapi guilty. It ruled that the warrantless arrest against him was legal since he was caught in flagrante delicto.

Lapi appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its April 29, 2013 Decision, the Court of Appeals denied the Appeal and affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision.

Hence, Lapi filed this Petition.

Petitioner argues that while he raises factual questions, his case falls under the exceptions under the Rules of Court. He claims that the Court of Appeals' factual findings "are totally bereft of support in the records and so glaringly erroneous as to constitute a serious abuse of discretion."

Issue(s):

1.       whether or not the Petition should be denied for raising questions of fact.

2.       whether or not the warrantless arrest against petitioner Simeon M. Lapi was valid.

Ruling:

1.     Yes. The petition should be denied.

The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.  A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court must, as a general rule, only raise questions of law.

 

In criminal cases, however, the accused has the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven. To prove guilt, courts must evaluate the evidence presented in relation to the elements of the crime charged. Thus, the finding of guilt is essentially a question of fact.

 

It is a well-settled rule that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review and that it becomes the duty of the Court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from, whether they are assigned as errors or not.

 

An examination of the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals shows no error that requires this Court's review. On this ground, the Petition can be outright dismissed.

 

2.     YES. The arrest was valid.

Petitioner argues that his warrantless arrest was illegal since PO2 Villeran had to peep through the window to ascertain that something illegal was occurring.

However, petitioner admits that he failed to question the validity of his arrest before arraignment. He did not move to quash the Information against him before entering his plea. He was assisted by counsel when he entered his plea. Likewise, he was able to present his evidence. 

 
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.

 

Petitioner does not deny that his drug test yielded positive for illegal drugs. What he questions is the alleged illegality of his arrest.

Petitioner, however, has already waived the right to question the validity of his arrest. No items were seized from him during his arrest as he was not charged with possession or sale of illegal drugs. Thus the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not err in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt in violation of Article II, Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165.