G.R. No. 200334 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. VICTOR COGAED Y ROMANA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Victor Cogaed y Romana GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and sentences him to suffer life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of one million pesos (Php 1,000,000.00). [46] The trial court judge initially found Cogaeds arrest illegal considering that Cogaed at that time was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was shown that he was about to do so or that had just done so. He just alighted from the passenger jeepney and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest. [47] Since the arrest was illegal, the warrantless search should also be considered illegal. [48] However, the trial court stated that notwithstanding the illegality of the arrest, Cogaed waived his right to object to such irregularity [49] when he did not protest when SPO1 Taracatac, after identifying himself, asked him to open his bag . [50] Cogaed appealed [51] the trial courts decision. However, the Court of Appeals denied his appeal and affirmed the trial courts decision. [52] The Court of Appeals found that Cogaed waived his right against warrantless searches when [w]ithout any prompting from SPO1 Taracatac, [he] voluntarily opened his bag. [53] Hence, this appeal was filed. The following errors were assigned by Cogaed in his appellants brief: I THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING THE SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE BEING THE RESULT OF AN UNLAWFUL WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE. II THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165. III THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS. [54] For our consideration are the following issues: (1) whether there was a valid search and seizure of marijuana as against the appellant; (2) whether the evidence obtained through the search should be admitted; and (3) whether there was enough evidence to sustain the conviction of the accused. In view of the disposition of this case, we deem that a discussion with respect to the requirements on the chain of custody of dangerous drugs unnecessary. [55] We find for the accused. II The right to privacy is a fundamental right enshrined by implication in our Constitution. It has many dimensions. One of its dimensions is its protection through the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution: 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 a