G.R. No. 229380 - LENIZA REYES Y CAPISTRANO, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, she was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00, with an order for her immediate arrest. [14] The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to prove that Reyes was validly arrested and thereupon, found to be in possession of shabu, which she voluntarily surrendered to the police officers upon her arrest. Likewise, it observed that the chain of custody of the seized item was sufficiently established through the testimony of PO1 Monteras, which was not ill-motivated. [15] Aggrieved, Reyes appealed [16] to the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision [17] dated May 20, 2016, the CA affirmed Reyes's conviction for the crime charged. [18] It held that the search made on Reyes's person yielding the sachet of shabu was valid as she was caught in flagrante delicto in its possession and was legally arrested on account thereof. [19] The CA likewise found substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated item were properly preserved. [20] However, it corrected the quantity of shabu stated in the RTC's dispositive portion to 0.04 gram in order to conform with the findings of PSI Villaraza and accordingly, modified the penalty imposed to twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum. [21] Hence, this appeal. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Reyes's conviction for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld. The Court's Ruling The appeal is meritorious. At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and, thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. [22] "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." [23] "Section 2, [24] 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 [become] 'unreasonable' within the meaning of said constitutional provision . To protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2), [25] 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 proverbia