G.R. No. 184807 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. GREGG C. BUENAVENTURA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Gregg Buenaventura is hereby adjudged GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165, and is hereby sentenced, as mandated under the aforequoted provision, to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and for him to pay a Fine of Five Hundred Thousand (PHP500,000.00). Considering the penalty imposed, the immediate commitment of herein accused to the National Penitentiary, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City is hereby ordered. Pursuant to Sec. 20 of R.A. 9165, the amount of PHP200.00 recovered from the accused representing the proceeds from the illegal sale of the plastic sachet of shabu is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government. Again, pursuant to Sec. 21 of the same law, the PDEA is hereby ordered to take charge and have custody of the plastic sachet of shabu, subject of the instant case, for proper disposition. [7] Accused-appellants conviction was elevated to the Court Appeals for review. Accused-appellant, represented by the Public Attorneys Office, filed his Brief [8] on August 23, 2005, while plaintiff-appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Brief [9] on December 19, 2005. The Court of Appeals considered the following arguments presented by the parties: Accused-appellant raises the following assignment of errors: The trial court gravely erred in not finding his search and arrest as illegal. The trial court gravely erred in convicting him of the crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is [accused-appellants] posture that his arrest and the seizure of the marked money, being without warrant, were illegal as it violates Sec. 2, Art. III, of the Constitution providing: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination of the complaint and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. According to him, items which were the product of illegal search and seizure are inadmissible as evidence in any proceedings for any purpose. And even in instances where warrantless search and seizure may be valid, the requirement of existence of probable cause cannot be dispensed with. Probable cause must only be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed in cases of search/seizure without warrant. In this case, [accused-appellant] claimed that he was not in either situation as he just mistook the policeman to be companions of the soldier with whom he had a spat earlier. Unable to hold the [accused-appellant] liable for possession of prohibited drug, the police planted evidence (marked money)