Inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence

The forces of the American and Philippine criminal law jurisprudence both postulate that illegally-obtained evidence is not admissible in a criminal court. This is obviously intended to protect the accused from the abuses of the police and other law-enforcement authorities. But then again, this doctrine called the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" may not be applicable to impeachment proceedings.

Senior Associate Justice Mario Victor Leonen who wrote the Supreme Court decision in the case of Joseph Villasana y Cabahug v. People of the Philippines, GR 209078, promulgated on September 4, 2019 opened his decision by declaring as follows: "Evidence seized as a result of an illegal warrantless arrest cannot be used against an accused pursuant to Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution."

Justice Leonen further explained: Even if the seizure was reasonable, the arresting officers' unjustified noncompliance with the legal safeguards under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 compromises the integrity of the confiscated drug. This creates reasonable doubt on the conviction of the accused for illegal possession of dangerous drugs." Again, this is not applicable to the impeachment case of the vice president.

The evidence for the prosecution consisted mainly of the testimony of the arresting officer, Martinez. At around 7:00 P.M. on January 4, 2005, while Police Officer 3 Martinez was on duty at the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Unit of the Valenzuela City Police Station, a confidential informant arrived and reported that Jojo Villasana and Nida Villasana were rampantly selling drugs along Hustisya Street, Marulas, Valenzuela City.

The evidence shows that thus, a team headed by Police Inspector Muammar Mukaram was at once formed to conduct surveillance operations. At about 11:30 P.M. that day, the team proceeded to the target area on board three vehicles: a car, a Revo van, and a motorcycle. They parked on Hustisya Street and waited inside the van. Around 10 to 15 minutes later, they saw, through the van's tinted front windshield, Villasana coming out of an alley around five to six meters away. He was holding a plastic sachet while talking to a woman.

Villasana came out of an alley around five to six meters away. He was holding a plastic sachet while talking to a woman. The police officers approached him discreetly. As he reached Villasana, PO3 Martinez held his hand and introduced himself as a police officer. He told Villasana not to throw the plastic sachet, to which the latter replied, "pang gamit ko lang to." After verifying that Villasana was indeed holding shabu, PO3 Martinez arrested him and confiscated the sachet. The woman, however, was able to escape.

On October 28, 2010, the Regional Trial Court convicted Villasana and sentenced him to 12 to 14 years of imprisonment. On March 11, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused saying: "The prosecution failed to establish probable cause to justify the in flagrante delicto arrest of the petitioner. Thus, the ensuing seizure of the shabu purportedly in his possession is unlawful, and the seized drug is, therefore, inadmissible in evidence". In other words, it was a warrantless arrest.

It was stressed by Justice Leonen: "Under the 1987 Constitution, all citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, houses, papers, and effects. As a rule, a search and seizure must be carried out with a search warrant validly issued by a judge upon personal determination of probable cause; otherwise, the search becomes unreasonable. It follows that any item or article obtained from such search cannot be used as evidence for any purpose in any proceeding."

More importantly, the police officers mishandled the evidence and violated the chain of custody protocols. Thus: "The police officers' unjustified noncompliance with the requirements for the marking and inventory of the seized drugs overthrows the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duty. Their ‘ostensibly approximate compliance’ is not enough, and therefore, tantamount to a failure to establish the corpus delicti. This raises reasonable doubt in the petitioner's favor."

Based on many precedents, warrantless arrests exacerbated by mishandling of evidence always lead to acquittal of the accused based on the doctrine of Fruits of the Poisonous Tree. The unlawful arrests and the mishandling of the evidence are the twin poisonous trees that result in a ruling of acquittal based on reasonable doubt.