Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUSSEL NAVARRO y MARMOJADA 535 SCRA 644 (2007)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUSSEL NAVARRO y MARMOJADA 535 SCRA 644 (2007)

Since appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto while selling a sachet of shabu to the poseur-buyer, his arrest without warrant was legal. Russel Navarro (Navarro) was apprehended in a buy-bust operation for selling and possession of shabu. He was charged with violation of Republic Act 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Regional Trial Court of Makati convicted him of the offense charged. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Hence, this petition. Navarro contends that the warrantless arrest and subsequent warrantless search were illegal. He also contends that there is no proof that the substance in the sachet was indeed shabu and that the equipoise rule should apply in his case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the warrantless arrest of Russel Navarro was valid.

HELD:

Since Navarro was arrested in flagrante delicto while selling a sachet of shabu to the poseur-buyer, his arrest without warrant was legal. On the warrant less search on Navarro’s body during which he was found to be in possession of a sachet of shabu, the same was legal too, it having been done during a lawful arrest. On Navarro’s claim that there was no proof that the substance in the sachets was indeed shabu, the same fails. The Physical Science Report found that the substance contained inside both sachets which came from appellant was positive for methyl amphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. That the forensic chemist who examined the contents of the sachets was not presented as a witness does not render the Physical Science Report hearsay as the parties stipulated, during the Pre-trial of the cases, that it was issued by a qualified Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory. As for Navarro’s invocation of the equipoise rule — that if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction — the same must be denied. The inculpatory facts are not capable of any explanation other than appellant’s guilt of sale and possession of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.