CASE TITLE: People vs Chua Ho San AUTHOR: Buera

[G.R. No. Date] GR. No. 128222, June 17, 1999 NOTES:
TOPIC:
PONENTE: Davide Jr.,
FACTS:
Chua Ho San a Taiwanese national was caught transporting shabu on an unfamiliar speedboat in Bacnotan, La Union.
Realizing that the vessel was different from the usual boats used by the fisherfolk SPO1 Badua assigned his men in
strategic places that from the moment Chua who realized that the moment he set foot on land was being watched he
fled but was eventually caught the policemen introduced themselves and inquired about the bag he was carrying..
Chua Ho San was then brought to the police station after it was confirmed that he was carrying shabu in his straw bag
. In the station they figured that he was a Taiwanese national and searched for an interpreter who translated and
informed him of his rights as an accused. Along with this was that he was charged with possession of illegal drugs
which he pleaded not guilty.
RTC Found him guilty. There was valid arrest since he was caught in flagrant delicto
CA affirmed RTC ruling
ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the search was incidental to a lawful arrest
HELD:
No.
RATIO:
The search was not incidental to an arrest since he warrantless arrest made did not fall under the exemptions allowed.
The contention that Chua Ho San was caught in flagrant delicto therefore making the warrantless arrest valid is
wrong since their basis was that Chua was on board an unusual and his supposed suspicious behavior when he
attempted to flee via navigating to the high seas. The court found the following circumstances unable to establish
probable cause that would lead them to think that Chua was actually transporting drugs. What happened was nothing
but a fishing expedition since the officers after introducing themselves immediately inquired about the contents of
the straw bag Chua was carrying. There were no telltale clues like the bag emanating a pungent odor or confidential
informants claiming that there was a felony to be committed therefore the arrest was not valid.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):