CONSTI 2/5/2017 that the accused had in his possession was concealed inside the right front pocket
that the accused had in his possession was concealed inside the right front pocket of his pants.
1 PEOPLE v LAGUIO
Police operatives of the Public Assistance and Reaction Against Crime of the Department of
Interior and Local Government, Captain Margallo, Police Inspector Cielito Coronel and SPO3
Reynaldo Cristobal, arrested SPO2 Vergel de Dios, Rogelio Anoble and a certain Arellano, for
unlawful possession of shabu. The three arrested persons, Redentor Teck, and Joseph Junio
were identified as the source of the drug. An entrapment operation was then set.
At around 11:00 p.m. that same date, Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio were arrested while they
were about to hand over another bag of shabu to SPO2 De Dios and company. TECK and JUNIO,
they were working as talent manager and gymnast instructor of Glamour Modeling Agency
owned by Lawrence Wang and that they were working for Wang. There a scheduled delivery of
shabu early the following morning of 17 May 1996, and that their employer (Wang) could be
found at the Maria Orosa Apartment in Malate, Manila. The police operatives decided to look for
Wang.
Prosecution witness Police Inspector Cielito Coronel testified came out of the apartment and
walked towards a parked BMW car. On nearing the car, officers approached Wang, frisked him
and asked him to open the back compartment of the BMW car, there was found inside the front
right pocket of Wang and confiscated from him an unlicensed AMT Cal. 380 9mm automatic
Back-up Pistol loaded with ammunitions. THE searched the BMW car and found inside it were
the following items: 32 transparent plastic bags containing 29.2941 kilograms, shabu; Daewoo
9mm Pistol with magazine. Then and there, Wang resisted the warrantless arrest and search.8
On 9 January 1997, Wang filed his undated Demurrer to Evidence,g for his acquittal and the
dismissal of the three (3) cases against him for lack of a valid arrest and search warrants and
the inadmissibility of the prosecution's evidence against him.
On 13 March 1997, the respondent judge, the Hon. Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr., issued the herein
assailed Resolution14 granting Wang's Demurrer to Evidence and acquitting him of all charges
for lack of evidence,
ISSUE: whether there was lawful arrest, search and seizure by the police operatives in this case
despite the absence of a warrant of arrest and/or a search warrant
RULING: NO, There are actually two (2) acts involved in this case, namely, the warrantless
arrest and the warrantless search. There is no question that warrantless search may be
conducted as an incident to a valid warrantless arrest. The law requires that there be first a
lawful arrest before a search can be made; the process cannot be reversed.26 However, if there
are valid reasons to conduct lawful search and seizure which thereafter shows that the accused
is currently committing a crime, the accused may be lawfully arrested in flagrante delicto27
without need for a warrant of arrest.
Finding that the warrantless arrest preceded the warrantless search in the case at bar, the trial
court granted private respondent's demurrer to evidence and acquitted .
Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the New Rules of Court, a peace officer may arrest a person
without a warrant: (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 in fact just
been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating 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 temporarily
confined while being transferred from one confinement to another. None of these circumstances
were present when the accused was arrested. The accused was merely walking from the Maria
Orosa Apartment and was about to enter the parked BMW car when the police officers arrested
and frisked him and searched his car. The accused was not committing any visible offense at the
time of his arrest. Neither was there an indication that he was about to commit a crime or that
he had just committed an offense. The unlicensed AMT Cal.380 9mm Automatic Back-up Pistol
And the handgun was bantam and slim in size that it would not give an outward indication of a
concealed gun if placed inside the pant's side pocket as was done by the accused. The arresting
officers had no information and knowledge that the accused was carrying an unlicensed
handgun, nor did they see him in possession thereof immediately prior to his arrest.
Ditto on the 32 bags of shabu and the other unlicensed Daewoo Cal. 9mm Pistol with magazine
that were found and seized from the car. The contraband items in the car were not in plain view.
The 32 bags of shabu were in the trunk compartment, and the Daewoo handgun was
underneath the driver's seat of the car. The police officers had no information, or knowledge
that the banned articles were inside the car, or that the accused had placed them there. The
police officers searched the car on mere suspicion that there was shabu therein.
Also the car found to be owned by his friend, David Lee. Not under paragraph (a) of Section 5.
It is settled that "reliable information" alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious
enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, is not sufficient to
constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.30
Neither may the warrantless arrest be justified under paragraph (b) of Section 5. What is clearly
established from the testimonies of the arresting officers is that Wang was arrested mainly on
the information that he was the employer of Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio who were
previously arrested and charged for illegal transport of shabu. Teck and Junio did not even
categorically identify Wang to be their source of the shabu they were caught with in flagrante
delicto. Upon the duo's declaration that there will be a delivery of shabu on the early morning of
the following day, May 17, which is only a few hours thereafter, and that Wang may be found in
Maria Orosa Apartment along Maria Orosa Street, the arresting officers conducted "surveillance"
operation in front of said apartment, hoping to find a person which will match the description of
one Lawrence Wang, the employer of Teck and Junio. These circumstances do not sufficiently
establish the existence of probable cause based on personal knowledge as required in paragraph
(b) of Section 5.
And doubtless, the warrantless arrest does not fall under paragraph (c) of Section 5.
The inevitable conclusion, as correctly made by the trial court, is that the warrantless arrest was
illegal. Ipso jure, the warrantless search incidental to the illegal arrest is likewise unlawful.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
2 NOLASCO v PAO G.R. No. L-69803. January 30, 1987 (NOT SURE)
For resolution are petitioners and public respondents respective Motions for Partial
Reconsideration of this Courts Decision of October 8, 1985, which decreed that:
"WHEREFORE, while Search Warrant No. 80-84 issued on August 6, 1984 by respondent
Executive Judge Ernani Cruz Pao is hereby annulled and set aside, and the Temporary
Restraining Order enjoining respondents from introducing evidence obtained pursuant to the
Search Warrant in the Subversive Documents Case hereby made permanent, the personalities
seized may be retained by the Constabulary Security Group for possible introduction as evidence
in Criminal Case No. SMC-1-1, pending before Special Military Commission No. 1, without
prejudice to petitioner Mila Aguilar-Roque objecting to their relevance and asking said
Commission to return to her any and all irrelevant documents and articles." (Rollo, p. 154; 139
SCRA 165)
In their Motion for Partial Reconsideration, public respondents maintain that the subject Search
Warrant meets the standards for validity and that it should be considered in the context of the
criminal offense of Rebellion for which the Warrant was issued, the documents to establish which
are less susceptible of particularization since the offense does not involve an isolated act or
transaction.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
In their own Motion for Partial Reconsideration, petitioners assail that portion of the Decision
holding that, in so far as petitioner Mila Aguilar-Roque is concerned, the search made in her
premises was incident to her arrest and could be made without a search warrant. Petitioners
submit that a warrantless search can be justified only if it is an incident to a lawful arrest and
that since Mila Aguilar was not lawfully arrested a search without warrant could not be made.
On April 10, 1986, we required the parties to MOVE in the premises considering the supervening
events, including the change of administration that have transpired, and pursuant to the
provisions of Section 18 of Rule 3 in so far as the public respondents are concerned (which
requires the successor official to state whether or not he maintains the action and position taken
by his predecessor-in-office).
In their Compliance, petitioners maintain that the arrest of petitioners and the search of their
premises thereafter are both illegal and that the personalities seized should be ordered returned
to their owners.
ISSUE WHETHER Search Warrant No. 80-84 issued on August 6, 1984 by respondent Executive
Judge Ernani Cruz Pao is admissible?
RULING NO
The Solicitor General, on behalf of public respondents, "in deference to the dissenting opinion of
then Supreme Court Justice (now Chief Justice) Claudio Teehankee," now offer no further
objection to a declaration that the subject search is illegal and to the return of the seized items
to the petitioners. Respondents state, however, that they cannot agree to having the arrest of
petitioners declared illegal.
The pertinent portion of the dissenting opinion referred to reads:
". . . The questioned search warrant has correctly been declared null and void in the Courts
decision as a general warrant issued in gross violation of the constitutional mandate that the
right of the people to be secure on their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be
violated (Bill of Rights, sec. 3). The Bill of Rights orders the absolute exclusion of all illegally
obtained evidence: Any evidence obtained in violation of this . . . section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding (Sec. 4[21). This constitutional mandate expressly adopting
the exclusionary rule has proved by historical experience to be the only practical means of
enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures by outlawing
all evidence illegally seized and thereby removing the incentive on the part of state and police
officers to disregard such basic rights. What the plain language of the Constitution mandates is
beyond the power of the courts to change or modify.
"All the articles thus seized fall under the exclusionary rule totally and unqualifiedly and cannot
be used against any of the three petitioners, as held by the majority in the recent case of
Galman v. Pamaran (G.R. Nos. 71208-09, August 30, 1985)
ACCORDINGLY, considering the respective positions now taken by the parties, petitioners Motion
for Partial Reconsideration of this Courts Decision of October 8, 1985 is GRANTED, and the
dispositive portion thereof is hereby revised to read as follows:
WHEREFORE, Search Warrant No. 80-84 issued on August 6, 1984 by respondent Executive
Judge Ernani Cruz Pao is hereby annulled and set aside, and the Temporary Restraining Order
enjoining respondents from introducing evidence obtained pursuant to the Search Warrant in the
Subversive Documents Case hereby made permanent. The personalities seized by virtue of the
illegal Search Warrant are hereby ordered returned to petitioners.
3 PEOPLE v MOLINA
Sometime in June 1996, SPO1 Marino Paguidopon,a member of the PNP, Matina, Davao City,
received an information of an alleged marijuana pusher. Paguidopon was then with his informer
when a motorcycle passed by. His informer pointed to the motorcycle driver, accused-appellant
Mula, as the pusher. As to accused-appellant Molina, SPO1 Paguidopon had no occasion to see
him before the arrest. Moreover, the names and addresses of the accused-appellants came to
the knowledge of SPO1 Paguidopon only after they were arrested.
SPO1 Paguidopon received an information pusher will be passing at NHA, Ma-a, Davao City,
same day, he called for assistance the team of SPO4 Dionisio Cloribe, SPO2 Paguidopon (brother
of SPO1 Marino Paguidopon), and SPO1 Pamplona, to proceed to the house of SPO1 Marino
Paguidopon where they would wait for the alleged pusher to pass by.
a trisikad carrying the accused-appellants passed by. At that instance, SPO1 Paguidopon pointed
to the accused-appellants as the pushers. Thereupon, the team boarded their vehicle and
overtook the trisikad.SPO1 Paguidopon was left in his house, thirty meters.The police officers
then ordered the trisikad to stop. Molina to open the bag. 13 Molina replied, Boss, if possible we
will settle this. SPO1 Pamplona insisted on opening the bag, which revealed dried marijuana
leaves inside. filed a Demurrer to Evidence,that the marijuana allegedly seized from them is
inadmissible as evidence for having been obtained in violation of their constitutional right
against unreasonable searches and seizures.
ISSUE whether or not the warrantless arrest, search and seizure in the present case fall within
the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.
RULING NO, Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained
therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest;
(2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of
evidence in plain view; (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable
searches and seizures; 24 and (6) stop and frisk situations (Terry search).
The first exception (search incidental to a lawful arrest) includes a valid warrantless search and
seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest which must precede the search. In this
instance, the law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made --- the
process cannot be reversed. As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid
warrant of arrest. The Rules of Court, however, recognizes permissible warrantless arrests.
Thus, a peace officer or a private person may, without 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 (arrest in flagrante delicto); (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 (arrest effected in hot pursuit); and (c) when
the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or a 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 (arrest of escaped prisoners).
In the case at bar,subsequent search conducted by the peace officers, are valid because
accused-appellants were caught in flagrante delicto in possession of prohibited drugs.
As applied to in flagrante delicto arrests, it is settled that reliable information alone, absent any
overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting
officers, are not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto
arrest.
Clearly, to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must concur: (1) the
person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer. 38crlwvirtualibrry
In the case at bar, accused-appellants manifested no outward indication that would justify their
arrest. In holding a bag on board a trisikad, accused-appellants could not be said to be
committing, attempting to commit or have committed a crime. It matters not that accused-
appellant Molina responded Boss, if possible we will settle this to the request of SPO1 Pamplona
to open the bag. Such response which allegedly reinforced the suspicion of the arresting officers
that accused-appellants were committing a crime, is an equivocal statement which standing
alone will not constitute probable cause to effect an inflagrante delicto arrest. Note that were it
not for SPO1 Marino Paguidopon (who did not participate in the arrest but pointed accused-
appellants to the arresting officers), accused-appellants could not be the subject of any
suspicion, reasonable or otherwise.
While SPO1 Paguidopon claimed that he and his informer conducted a surveillance of accused-
appellant Mula, SPO1 Paguidopon, however, admitted that he only learned Mulas name and
address after the arrest. What is more, it is doubtful if SPO1 Paguidopon indeed recognized
accused-appellant Mula. It is worthy to note that, before the arrest, he was able to see Mula in
person only once, pinpointed to him by his informer while they were on the side of the road.
These circumstances could not have afforded SPO1 Paguidopon a closer look at accused-
appellant Mula, considering that the latter was then driving a motorcycle when SPO1
Paguidopon caught a glimpse of him. With respect to accused-appellant Molina, SPO1
Paguidopon admitted that he had never seen him before the arrest.
Evidently, SPO1 Paguidopon, who acted as informer of the arresting officers, more so the
arresting officers themselves, could not have been certain of accused-appellants identity, and
were, from all indications, merely fishing for evidence at the time of the arrest.
Withal, the Court holds that the arrest of accused-appellants does not fall under the exceptions
allowed by the rules. Hence, the search conducted on their person was likewise illegal.
Consequently, the marijuana seized by the peace officers could not be admitted as evidence
against accused-appellants, and the Court is thus, left with no choice but to find in favor of
accused-appellants.
WHEREFORE , the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 17, in Criminal Case
No. 37, 264-96, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For lack of evidence to establish their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellants Nasario Molina y Manamat alias Bobong and
Gregorio Mula y Malagura alias Boboy, are ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED from
confinement unless they are validly detained for other offenses. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
4 PEOPLE V Chua
the witnesses were SPO1 Anthony de Leon, PO2 Artemio Santillan and PO3 Albert Amurao.
There is a drug-related activities were going on at the HCL Building, 1025 Masangkay St.,
Binondo, Manila, after that , they conducted a test-buy operation, together with a Chinese-
speaking asset. They were able to buy P2,000.00 methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Nonetheless, they did not immediately arrest the suspects but applied for a warrant to search
Unit 4-B of HCL Building, 1025 Masangkay St., Binondo, Manila. Their application to search the
unit supposedly owned by Timothy Tiu was granted by Judge Ramon Makasiar of Branch 35 of
the RTC of Manila on October 9.4 Armed with the warrant, they proceeded to the place and
learned that Tiu Won was not inside the building. They waited outside but Tiu Won did not come.
After, they were able to implement the warrant .
During the enforcement of the warrant, there were three (3) persons inside the apartment,
namely, appellants Tiu Won and Qui Yaling, and a housemaid. The search was conducted on the
sala and in the three (3) bedrooms of Unit 4-B. On top of a table inside the masters bedroom,
one (1) big pack, containing 234.5 grams of shabu, was found inside a black leather mans
handbag supposedly owned by Tiu Won, while sixteen (16) small packs of shabu weighing
20.3673 grams were found inside a ladys handbag allegedly owned by Qui Yaling. Also
contained in the inventory were the following items: an improvised tooter, a weighing scale, an
improvised burner and one rolled tissue paper.5The authorities also searched a Honda Civic car
bearing Plate No. WCP 157, parked along Masangkay Street, registered in the name of the wife
of Tiu Won and found four (4) plastic bags containing 6.2243 grams of shabu, which were
likewise confiscated. A gun in the possession of Tiu Won was also seized and made subject of a
separate criminal case.
The defense presented appellants Tiu Won and Qui Yaling. They denied that Timothy Tiu and Tiu
Won Chua are one and the same person. They presented papers and documents to prove that
appellant is Tiu Won Chua and not Timothy Tiu, as stated in the search warrant. Tiu Won also
claimed that he does not live in the apartment subject of the search warrant, alleging that he is
married to a certain Emily Tan and is a resident of No. 864 Alvarado St., Binondo, Manila.
Nonetheless, he admitted that his co-appellant, Qui Yaling, is his mistress with whom he has
two children. Qui Yaling admitted being the occupant of the apartment, but alleged that she only
occupied one room, while two other persons, a certain Lim and a certain Uy, occupied the other
rooms. Both appellants denied that they were engaged in the sale or possession of shabu. They
asserted that they are in the jewelry business and that at the time the search and arrest were
made, the third person, whom the prosecution identified as a housemaid, was actually a certain
Chin, who was there to look at some of the pieces of jewelry sold by Tiu Won. They also denied
that a gun was found in the possession of Tiu Won.
ISSUE whether of the search warrant and the search and arrest legal
RULING YES
As regards the propriety of the search warrant issued in the name of Timothy Tiu, which did not
include appellant Qui Yaling, appellants contend that because of this defect, the search
conducted and consequently, the arrest, are illegal. Being fruits of an illegal search, the
evidence presented cannot serve as basis for their conviction.
We beg to disagree. There are only four requisites for a valid warrant, i.e,: (1) it must be issued
upon probable cause; (2) probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) such
judge must examine under oath or affirmation the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce; and (4) the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.8 As correctly argued by the Solicitor General, a mistake in the
name of the person to be searched does not invalidate the warrant,9 especially since in this
case, the authorities had personal knowledge of the drug-related activities of the accused. In
fact, a John Doe warrant satisfies the requirements so long as it contains a descriptio personae
such as will enable the officer to identify the accused.10 We have also held that a mistake in the
identification of the owner of the place does not invalidate the warrant provided the place to be
searched is properly described.11crlwvirtualibrry
Thus, even if the search warrant used by the police authorities did not contain the correct name
of Tiu Won or the name of Qui Yaling, that defect did not invalidate it because the place to be
searched was described properly. Besides, the authorities conducted surveillance and a test-buy
operation before obtaining the search warrant and subsequently implementing it. They can
therefore be presumed to have personal knowledge of the identity of the persons and the place
to be searched although they may not have specifically known the names of the accused. Armed
with the warrant, a valid search of Unit 4-B was conducted.
We affirm, however, the illegality of the search conducted on the car, on the ground that it was
not part of the description of the place to be searched mentioned in the warrant. It is mandatory
that for the search to be valid, it must be directed at the place particularly described in the
warrant.12Moreover, the search of the car was not incidental to a lawful arrest. To be valid, such
warrantless search must be limited to that point within the reach or control of the person
arrested, or that which may furnish him with the means of committing violence or of
escaping.13 In this case, appellants were arrested inside the apartment, whereas the car was
parked a few meters away from the building.
In the case at bar, the prosecution has sufficiently proved that the packs of shabu were found
inside Unit 4-B, HCL Building, 1025 Masangkay St., Binondo, Manila. Surveillance was previously
conducted. Though no arrest was made after the successful test-buy operation, this does not
destroy the fact that in a subsequent search, appellants were found in possession of shabu. The
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are consistent in that after the test-buy operation, they
obtained a search warrant from Judge Makasiar, pursuant to which, they were able to confiscate,
among others, several packs of shabu from a mans handbag and a ladies handbag inside a room
in the unit subject of the warrant. Furthermore, the seizure of the regulated drug from Unit 4-B
is proven by the Receipt for Property Seized16 signed by SPO1 de Leon, the seizing officer, Noel,
the building administrator, and Joji Olarte, his wife, who were also present. De Leon attested to
the truth and genuineness of the receipt which was not contradicted by the defense.
Qui Yaling likewise argues that the lower court erred in attributing ownership of the handbag to
her considering that there was another girl present at the apartment during the search. She
contends that since the prosecution was not able to establish the ownership of the bag, then
such could have also been owned by Chin.
We do not subscribe to this argument. Furthermore, a visitor does not normally leave her bag
lying anywhere, much more in the masters bedroom. Being the occupant of the apartment, it is
more logical to presume that the handbag belongs to Qui Yaling. The failure of the prosecution
to present the bags and proofs that the bags belong to the appellants is immaterial because the
bags, the license of Tiu Won found inside the mans handbag and the passport of Qui Yaling
found inside the ladies handbag are not illegal. Having no relation to the use or possession of
shabu, the authorities could not confiscate them for they did not have the authority to do so
since the warrant authorized them to seize only articles in relation to the illegal possession of
shabu.
We now come to the penalties of the appellants. R. A. No. 6425, as amended by R. A. No. 7659,
applies. Thus, since 234.5 grams of shabu were found inside the mans handbag, deemed to be
owned by Tiu Won, he is guilty of violating Section 16, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, while Qui
Yaling, whose handbag contained only 20.3673 grams of shabu is guilty of violating Section 20
thereof. Section 16, in connection with Section 20 (1st paragraph), provides the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million
pesos where the amount of shabu involved is 200 grams or more. Where the amount is less
than 200 grams, Section 20 punishes the offender with the penalty ranging from prision
correccional to reclusion perpetua.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of RTC Br. 27, Manila as to the penalty of appellant Tiu Won is
affirmed, while that of appellant Qui Yaling is modified. Tiu Won Chua is sentenced to a penalty
of reclusion perpetua, and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) in accordance
with Section 16 and Section 20 (1st paragraph) of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No.
7659. Qui Yaling y Chua is sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of prision correccional as
minimum to prision mayor as maximum, there being no mitigating or aggravating
circumstances.
SO ORDERED.
5 PEOPLE V SARAP
Armed with a search warrant,4 SPO4 Gelacio R. Guarino, Chief of Police of Banga, Aklan
together with PO2 Jhanny Navida, raided the house of Conrado Ricaforte at Rizal Street,
Poblacion, Banga, Aklan on March 2, 1996, relative to the reported sale of marijuana by its
occupants, Jonalyn Duran, Joysie Duran and Pepe Casabuena. The three were apprehended for
illegal possession of marijuana and were detained at the Banga Police Station.5 In the course of
their investigation, the police learned that a certain Melly from Capiz and one Roger were the
suppliers of marijuana and that they will be back on March 4, 1996.
On March 4, 1996, Janet Iguiz,6 caretaker of the house of Conrado Ricaforte informed Guarino
that there were two strangers looking for the Duran sisters.
Accordingly, Guarino and Navida recorded the report in the police blotter. When they arrived
there, Guarino saw a woman, Melly Sarap, walking in the alley near the house. Accused-
appellant saw Guarino and Navida in police uniform and immediately threw away her black
canvass bag, which her companion Roger Amar picked up. Guarino blocked Saraps path and
grabbed from her the green plastic bag she was holding. Upon inspection, the plastic bag was
found to contain two blocks of marijuana fruiting tops.In the meantime, Navida pursued Amar
and arrested him.
The marijuana confiscated from Sarap , indeed marijuana or Indian hemp and weighed
approximately 900 grams . Accused-appellant, denied the accusation against her. She narrated
that she delivered dried fish to her sister, Susanne Ricablanca, after which she went to the
comfort room of the dress shop fronting Banga Public Market to relieve herself. On her way to
the dress shop, she met Amar and entrusted to him her black bag. Thereafter, a woman
approached and told her that there were policemen waiting for her outside. The policemen
forced her to board a jeep and brought her to the office of Chief of Police Guarino at the
municipal hall. Guarino poked a gun at her and pulled her hair. He also asked her to remove her
pants and shirt. A certain PO3 Pedro Jerry Icay asked her to remove her bra and when she
refused, he pulled her bra because he was looking for marijuana on accused-appellants person.
Sarap asserted that the policemen did not get any marijuana from her.
accused Roger Amar is hereby ACQUITTED. The Court finds accused Melly Sarap GUILTY
Iissue whether THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND
ARREST ILLEGAL
RULING YES
A search may be conducted by law enforcers only on the strength of a warrant validly issued by
a judge as provided in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.14 Articles which are the product
of unreasonable searches and seizures are inadmissible as evidence, pursuant to Article III,
Section 3 (2) of the Constitution.15 Warrantless searches and seizures may be made without a
warrant in the following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest, (2) search of a moving
motor vehicle, (3) search in violation of custom laws, (4) seizure of the evidence in plain view,
(5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures,16
(6) stop and frisk17 and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances.18 These instances, however
do not dispense with the requisite of probable cause before a warrantless search and seizure can
be lawfully conducted. In warrantless search cases, probable cause must only be based on
reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be
committed.
We are not convinced. The Banga Police Officers were admittedly not armed with a warrant of
arrest. Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure states:
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 in fact just been
committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested
has committed it. xxx
In the instant case, Sarap cannot be said to be committing a crime. Neither was she about to
commit one nor had she just committed a crime. She was merely walking in the alley near the
house of Conrado Ricaforte. It was only when Janet Iguiz led Sarap downstairs and identified
her as Melly that she was singled out as the suspect. Guarino would not have apprehended
Sarap were it not for Janet Iguizs identification. Moreover, the evidence on record clearly
illustrated that it was only after Janet Iguiz pointed to Sarap as Melly that Guarino suspected
that the bag she was holding contained marijuana.
The Banga Police could have secured a search warrant when Jonalyn Duran disclosed during the
investigation that a certain Melly of Capiz and one Roger would be back on March 4, 1996. The
persons intended to be searched had been particularized and the thing to be seized specified.
The time was also sufficiently ascertained to be March 4, 1996, although it was uncertain
whether Melly would arrive. Melly turned out to be accused-appellant and the thing to be seized
was marijuana. The above particulars would have provided sufficient grounds to secure a search
warrant, instead, the police only acted when the caretaker of the house of Conrado Ricaforte
informed them that there were strangers looking for Jonalyn and Joysie Duran. Hence, they
cannot now dispense with the requirement of a search warrant on the basis of urgency in
effecting it, considering that they had twenty-four hours to do so. The apprehending officers had
prior knowledge of Saraps alleged activities. Verily, there was no excuse for the Banga Police not
to secure a search warrant.
Hence, the Banga Police could not effect a warrantless search and seizure since there was no
probable cause and Sarap was not lawfully arrested. The law requires that the search must be
incidental to a lawful arrest in order that the search itself may likewise be considered legal.
Contrary to the finding of the trial court, the instant case did not come within the purview of the
plain view doctrine. In order for the doctrine to apply, the following conditions must be present:
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally
present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by
the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately
apparent; and (d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further
search.24crlwvirtualibrry
In the absence of probable cause to effect a valid warrantless arrest, the search of Saraps bag
was also not justified as seizure of evidence in plain view under the fourth exception. The
marijuana fruiting tops contained in the green plastic bag carried by Sarap were not clearly
visible. Chief of Police Guarino, testified
The above testimony negates the conclusion of the trial court that the marijuana fruiting tops
were inadvertently discovered. More importantly, the marijuana fruiting tops were also not
apparent and in plain view as shown by the fact that Chief of Police Guarino still had to grab
Saraps bag to ascertain its contents.
Without the illegally seized prohibited drug, the appellants conviction cannot stand. There is
simply no sufficient evidence to convict her. That the search disclosed marijuana fruiting tops in
appellants possession, and thus confirmed the police officers initial information and suspicion,
did not cure its patent illegality. An illegal search cannot be undertaken and then an arrest
effected on the strength of the evidence yielded by the search for being a fruit of a poisonous
tree.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan,
Branch 7, finding accused-appellant Melly Sarap y Arcangeles guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellant Melly Sarap y Arcangeles is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground
of reasonable doubt. The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women is directed to
cause the immediate release of accused-appellant unless lawfully held for another cause, and to
inform this Court of the date of her release, or the ground for her continued confinement, within
ten days from notice.
SO ORDERED