G.R. No.

180452 January 10, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
NG YIK BN, K!OK !"I #HENG, #H"NG #H"N SHI, #H" SHILO H!"N, K"N SHN $IN,
"N% R"Y$ON% S. T"N, Accused-Appellants.
TOPI#& Warrantless Arrest (In Flagrante Delicto + Plain View Doctrine)
%o'(r)n*& Wen a police officer +**+ te offense, altoug at a distance, or ears te distur!ances
created tere!", and proceeds at once to te scene, e #a" effect an arrest witout a warrant on te
!asis of $ec. %(a), &ule ''( of te &ules of )ourt, as te offense is ,**-*, 'o--)((*, )n .)+ /r*+*n'*
or 0)(.)n .)+ 1)*0. 2P3an 4)*0 %o'(r)n*5
F"#TS&
'. *e accused, conspiring togeter, transported, delivered and distri!uted twent"-five (+%) eat-
sealed transparent plastic !ags containing ,eta#peta#ine -"drocloride (sa!u).
+. )apt. Danilo I!on of *as. Force Aduana received infor#ation fro# an operative tat tere was an
ongoing sip#ent of contra!and.
(. )apt. I!on and is tea# spotted si/ )inese-loo.ing #en loading !ags containing a wite
su!stance into a wite van.
0. )apt. I!on as.ed accused-appellant )ua $ilou -wan (-wan) wat te" were loading on te
van.
%. -wan replied tat it was sa!u and pointed, wen pro!ed furter, to accused-appellant &a"#ond
*an as te leader.
1. A total of '2+ !ags of suspected sa!u were ten confiscated. 3undles of noodles (bihon) were
also found on te pre#ises.
2. An infor#ation for violation of &A 10+% was filed against accused-appellants, wo entered a plea
of not guilt" upon re-arraign#ent.
4. RT#& convicted accused-appellants of te cri#ed carged.
5. In 6uestioning te &*) Decision, accused-appellants raised te lone issue of7
a. weter te trial court erred in ruling tat tere was a valid searc and arrest despite te
a!sence of a warrant.
'8. #"& affir#ed &*) decision
a. Accused-appellants were caugt in flagrante delicto loading transparent plastic !ags
containing wite cr"stalline su!stance into an 9-(88 van wic, tus, :ustified teir arrests
and te sei;ure of te contra!and.
ISSE& Weter tere was a valid searc and sei;ure< - =>$
RLING& A settled e/ception to te rigt guaranteed in te )onstitution is tat of an arrest #ade during
te co##ission of a cri#e, wic does not re6uire a warrant. $uc warrantless arrest is considered
reasona!le and valid under &ule ''(, $ec. %(a) of te &evised &ules on )ri#inal Procedure, wic
states7
$ec. %. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. ? A peace officer or a private person #a", 0)(.ou( a
0arran(, arr*+( a /*r+on7
(a) Wen, in is presence, te /*r+on (o 6* arr*+(*, as co##itted, )+ a'(ua33y 'o--)(()n7, or is
atte#pting to co##it an offense@
*e foregoing proviso refers to arrest in flagrante delicto. In te instant case, contrar" to accused-
appellantsA contention, tere was indeed a valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto. )onsider te
circu#stances i##ediatel" prior to and surrounding te arrest of accused-appellants7 (') te police
officers received infor#ation fro# an operative a!out an ongoing sip#ent of contra!and@ (+) te police
officers, wit te operative, proceeded to Villa Vicenta &esort in 3aranga" 3igna" II, $aria"a, Bue;on@ (()
te" o!served te goings-on at te resort fro# a distance of around %8 #eters@ and (0) te" spotted te
si/ accused-appellants loading transparent !ags containing a wite su!stance into a wite 9-(88 van.
>videntl", te arresting police officers ad pro!a!le cause to suspect tat accused-appellants were
loading and transporting contra!and, #ore so wen -wan, upon !eing accosted, readil" #entioned tat
te" were loading sa!u and pointed to *an as teir leader. *us, te arrest of accused-appellantsCCwo
were caugt in flagrante delicto of possessing, and in te act of loading into a wite 9-(88 van, sa!u, a
proi!ited drug under &A 10+%, as a#endedCCis valid.
In People v. Alunday, 0* .*3, (.a( 0.*n a /o3)'* o88)'*r +**+ (.* o88*n+*, a3(.ou7. a( a ,)+(an'*, or
.*ar+ (.* ,)+(ur6an'*+ 'r*a(*, (.*r*6y, an, /ro'**,+ a( on'* (o (.* +'*n*, .* -ay *88*'( an
arr*+( 0)(.ou( a 0arran( on (.* 6a+)+ o8 S*'. 52a5, Ru3* 119 o8 (.* Ru3*+ o8 #our(, a+ (.* o88*n+* )+
,**-*, 'o--)((*, )n .)+ /r*+*n'* or 0)(.)n .)+ 1)*0. In te instant case, it can plausi!l" !e argued
tat accused-appellants were co##itting te offense of possessing sa!u and were in te act of loading
te# in a wite van wen te police officers arrested te#. As aptl" noted !" te appellate court, te
cri#e was co##itted in te presence of te police officers wit te contra!and, inside transparent plastic
containers, in plain view and dul" o!served !" te arresting officers.
And to write finis to te issue of an" irregularit" in teir warrantless arrest, te )ourt notes, as it as
consistentl" eld, tat accused-appellants are dee#ed to ave waived teir o!:ections to teir arrest for
not raising te issue !efore entering teir plea.