G.R. No. 227038 - JEFFREY MIGUEL Y REMEGIO, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. [11] The RTC found that BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez conducted a valid warrantless arrest, as petitioner was scandalously showing his private parts at the time of his arrest. Therefore, the resultant search incidental to such arrest which yielded the seized marijuana in petitioner's possession was also lawful. In this regard, since the prosecution has adequately shown that petitioner freely and consciously possessed such marijuana without authority by law, then he must be convicted for violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. [12] Aggrieved, petitioner appealed [13] to the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision [14] dated October 21, 2015, the CA affirmed petitioner's conviction. [15] It held that the search made on petitioner which yielded the seized marijuana was validly made as it was done incidental to his arrest for exhibiting his private parts on public. As such, the said seized marijuana is admissible in evidence and, thus, sufficient to convict him for the crime charged. [16] The CA likewise held that the rule on chain of custody was duly complied with and, thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were not compromised. [17] Undaunted, petitioner moved for reconsideration, [18] which was, however, denied in a Resolution [19] dated September 5, 2016; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld petitioner's conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. 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." [20] Proceeding from the foregoing, and as will be explained hereunder, petitioner's conviction must be set aside. One of the arguments presented in the instant petition is that the search and arrest made on petitioner were illegal and, thus, the marijuana purportedly seized from him is inadmissible in evidence. [21] In this relation, it is worth noting that his arresting officers, i.e. , BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez, are mere Bantay Bayan operatives of Makati City. Strictly speaking, they are not government agents like the Philippine National Police (PNP) or the National Bureau of Investigation in charge of law enforcement; but rather, they are ci