People vs.

Sucro
Marijuana Dealer
Summary: A suspected marijuana dealer was being watched by the police after receiving information from informant.
Having witnessed several transactions, the police moved in on a third and apprehended the buyer who identified the
suspect as the seller.

Rule of Law: A peace officer or private person may, without warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; and 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.

Facts:
Edison Sucro (D) was charged with and convicted of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Sucro (D) was suspected of selling marijuana based on information from a police informant. His activities were
monitored and confirmed several transactions taking place in the area of a certain chapel. The police decided to
move in on an ongoing transaction and was able to apprehend a buyer who identified Sucro (D) as the seller. The
police also recovered

several marijuana sticks from the chapel where Sucro (D) left them.

Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid?

Ruling:
Yes. A peace officer or 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;

(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;
An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule
authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears
the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. ( U.S. vs. Fortaleza, 12 Phil. 472
(1909); and U.S. vs. Samonte, 16 Phil. 516 (1910))

The failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their knowledge acquired from the
surveillance was insufficient to fulfill the requirements for the issuance of a search warrant. What is paramount is that
probable cause existed.