VILLANUEVA vs. PEOPLE | G.R. No. 199042 | Nov. 17, 2014 | Sereno, C.J.

Petitioners: Danilo Villanueva y Alcaraz

Respondents: People of the Philippines
Nature of the Case: Petition for Review on Certiorari

SUMMARY: Villanueva was charged for shooting someone along a road in Navotas. The police went to his
house, informed him of the complaint, brought him to the police station, and frisked him, finding a packet
of shabu in his pants. All of these were done without a warrant. Villanueva was thus charged with violation
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The lower courts convicted him. The SC reversed the CA,
stating that while Villanueva waived his right to object to an illegal arrest, he did not waive his right to
object to an illegal search. The search being warrantless and illegal, the shabu obtained was considered
to be the “fruit of the poisonous tree” and thus inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.

A. FACTS

 Petitioner Danilo Villanueva was charged with violation of A2S11 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act) for possessing 0.63g of Metamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), for which
he pleaded not guilty
 Prosecution’s witnesses testified that a certain Brian Resco filed a Complaint against Villanueva
for allegedly shooting the former along C3 in Navotas
 After the blotter, the police went to Villanueva’s house, informed him of the Complaint, and
invited him to the police station, where he was subjected to a body search, from which a sachet
of shabu was recovered from his pants’ left pocket
 The sachet was marked and brought to the National Police District-Scene of the Crime Operatives
(NPD-SOCO) for examination
 RTC convicted Villanueva for the offense charged
 CA affirmed the RTC

B. ISSUES AND RULING:

W/N CA erred in affirming RTC despite the illegality of the arrest and the police’s lapses in the
handling of the confiscated drug – YES

1. Villanueva is estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest.

a. Rule 113, Sec. 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: Arrest without warrant; when
lawful.—A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from
a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
 transferred from one confinement to another.
b. Whereas none of the circumstances obtain, Villanueva never objected to the irregularity
of his arrest before his arraignment, having plead not guilty
c. Having actively participated in the trial, he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
court and waived his right to question the validity of his arrest

2. However, a waiver of an illegal arrest is not a waiver of an illegal search.

a. Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements on when a warrantless search can be
conducted. These searches include:
(1) search of a moving vehicle;
(2) seizure in plain view;
(3) customs search;
(4) waiver or consented search;
(5) stop-and-frisk situation;
(6) search incidental to a lawful arrest; and
(7) exigent and emergency circumstance.
b. The warrantless search not being among the above, it is illegal. Consent must be voluntary
in order to validate an otherwise illegal search; in this case, Villanueva was merely
“ordered” to take out the contents of his pocket, as per the police’s testimony.

3. Therefore, the evidence obtained is not admissible.

a. This is an instance of seizure of the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Having been obtained
through an unlawful search, the seized item is thus inadmissible in evidence against
accused-appellant consonant with Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution: “Any
evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding.”
b. Without the seized item, therefore, the conviction of accused-appellant cannot be
sustained.

DISPOSITIVE: CA Decision set aside. Petitioner acquitted.