You are on page 1of 4

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (WON) v.

ROBERTO authorities who immediately formed a team to apprehend the


T. GARCIA Racho y Raquero. On May 20, 2003, at 11:00 a.m., Racho y
Note: Laws/Principles/Doctrines are underlined. Raquero called up the agent with the information that he was on
board a Genesis bus and would arrive in Baler, Aurora anytime
of the day wearing a red and white striped T-shirt. When Racho
FACTS: y Raquero alighted from the bus, the confidential agent pointed
The Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) of the Makati Police to him as the person he transacted with, and when the latter was
received a report from an informant detailing the rampant about to board a tricycle, the team approached him and invited
selling of shabu, along 5th Street, West Rembo, Makati City. him to the police station as he was suspected of carrying shabu.
The informant specifically named "Bobby" and "Isa," who When he pulled out his hands from his pants pocket, a white
turned out to be Garcia and Melissa, as being engaged in the envelope slipped therefrom which, when opened, yielded a
illegal sale. The team, together with the informant, immediately small sachet containing the suspected drug. The team then
proceeded to the target area. The informant, together with PO2 brought Racho y Raquero to the police station for investigation
Barrameda who acted as poseur-buyer, approached the two. As and the confiscated specimen was marked. The field test and
soon as Garcia received the ₱100 bill from PO2 Barrameda, he laboratory examinations on the contents of the confiscated
secured from Melissa a small plastic sachet containing white sachet yielded positive results for methamphetamine
granules which he handed over to PO2 Barrameda. hydrochloride.
PO2 Barrameda thereupon arrested Garcia after introducing The RTC rendered a Joint Judgment convicting Racho y
himself as a police officer and apprising him and Melissa of Raquero of Violation of R.A. 9165. The CA affirmed the RTC
their constitutional rights. The team thereafter brought Garcia decision.
and Melissa to the police station for investigation. The contents In his supplemental brief, Racho y Raquero assails, for the first
of the sachets which were subjected to qualitative examination time, the legality of his arrest and the validity of the subsequent
were positive for shabu. warrantless search. He questions the admissibility of the
RTC of Makati City found Garcia and Melissa guilty of confiscated sachet on the ground that it was the fruit of the
violation of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of poisonous tree.
2002). Only Garcia appealed the trial court’s judgment to the
Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals affirmed the Judgment of ISSUES:
RTC. 1. Whether or not the arrest was valid. – RACHO Y RAQUERO
The Garcia faulted the trial court in not finding that he was CAN NO LONGER QUESTION VALIDITY OF HIS
illegally arrested. He insisted that none of the circumstances ARREST.
justifying a warrantless arrest under Section 5 of Rule 113 of 2. Whether or not the subsequent warrantless search was valid.
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure was present. - NO

ISSUE: RULING:
Whether or not Garcia was legally arrested. - YES 1.
The records show that Racho y Raquero never objected to the
RULING: irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. In fact, this is
Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal the first time that he raises the issue. Jurisprudence dictates
Procedure provides that a peace officer or a private person that appellant, having voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction
may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, of the trial court, is deemed to have waived his right to question
the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, the validity of his arrest, thus curing whatever defect may have
or is attempting to commit an offense. attended his arrest.
Having committed the crime of selling shabu in the presence of 2.
the buy-bust operation team, and having been found to be in The sachet of shabu seized from Racho Y Raquero during the
possession of another sachet of shabu immediately thereafter, warrantless search is inadmissible in evidence against him. The
Garcia’s arrest without warrant is, unquestionably, justified. 1987 Constitution states that a search and consequent seizure
Garcia was caught in flagrante delicto – in the act of selling a must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it
sachet containing substances which turned out to be positive for becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom
shabu to poseur-buyer PO2 Barrameda. And as soon as he was shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding
arrested, he was frisked by the arresting officers in the course exceptions in:
of which a sachet also containing substances which too turned 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
out to be positive for shabu was found in his pocket. 2. Search of evidence in plain view;
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
4. Consented warrantless search;
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JACK RACHO y 5. Customs search;
RAQUERO (WON) 6. Stop and Frisk; and
Note: Laws/Principles/Doctrines are underlined. 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.
Jurisprudence holds that in searches incident to a lawful arrest,
FACTS: the arrest must precede the search; generally, the process cannot
On May 19, 2003, a confidential agent of the police transacted be reversed. Here, what prompted the police to apprehend
through cellular phone with Racho y Raquero for the purchase appellant, even without a warrant, was the tip given by the
of shabu. The agent reported the transaction to the police
informant that appellant would arrive in Baler, Aurora carrying The RTC found Zalameda and Villaflor guilty of violating R.A.
shabu. No. 9165. The CA affirmed the RTC decision. Zalameda
The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that reliable moved to reconsider this decision, but the CA denied his
information alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. motion.
The rule requires, in addition, that the accused perform some Zalameda alleges that the items confiscated from him were
overt act that would indicate that he has committed, is actually inadmissible, and that the prosecution failed to prove the
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Appellant existence of the illegal drug. The OSG countered that the
here was not committing a crime in the presence of the police warrantless arrest conducted by the police was valid as
officers. The arresting officers did not have personal knowledge Zalameda and Villaflor were caught sniffing shabu. Since the
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had committed, arrest was lawful, the search made incidental to the arrest of the
was committing, or about to commit an offense. Racho y two accused was also lawful.
Raquero was not acting in any suspicious manner that would
engender a reasonable ground for the police officers to suspect ISSUE:
and conclude that he was committing or intending to commit a Whether or not lawful arrest, search and seizure took place. -
crime. YES
Neither were the arresting officers impelled by any urgency that
would allow them to do away with the requisite warrant. Their RULING:
office received the tipped information on May 19, 2003. They Zalameda failed to question the legality of his warrantless
likewise learned the Racho y Raquero’s physical description arrest. The established rule is that an accused may be estopped
and his name. There was an assurance that he would be there from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for
the following day. Clearly, the police had ample opportunity to the quashing of the Information against him before his
apply for a warrant. arraignment. Any objection involving the arrest or the
This is an instance of seizure of the fruit of the poisonous tree, procedure in the courts acquisition of jurisdiction over the
hence, the confiscated item is inadmissible in evidence person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea;
consonant with Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 otherwise the objection is deemed waived.
Constitution, any evidence obtained in violation of this or the In any event, careful examination of the records shows that the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any warrantless arrest conducted on the petitioner was valid.
proceeding. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
Without the confiscated shabu, Racho y Raquero’s conviction provides:
cannot be sustained based on the remaining evidence. Thus, an Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace
acquittal is warranted, despite the waiver of appellant of his officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
right to question the illegality of his arrest by entering a plea arrest a person:
and his active participation in the trial of the case. A waiver of a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal commit an offense;
warrantless arrest. 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
GILBERT ZALAMEDA v. PEOPLE OF THE be arrested has committed it; and
PHILIPPINES (WON) c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
Note: Laws/Principles/Doctrines are underlined. escaped from a penal establishment or place where he
is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined
FACTS: while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
At around 5:15 a.m., SPO4 Orbeta of Precinct 1, Makati City, transferred from one confinement to another.
received a phone call from a concerned citizen regarding an on- Paragraph (a) of Section 5 is commonly known as an in
going pot session at 2725 D. Gomez St., Barangay Tejeros, flagrante delicto arrest. For a warrantless arrest of an accused
Makati City. SPO4 Orbeta dispatched police officers to verify caught in flagrante delicto to be valid, two requisites must
the report. They reached their intended destination and found concur:
the door of the house slightly open. PO2 De Guzman peeped (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
inside and saw Zalameda and Villaflor sniffing smoke. They indicating that he has just committed, is actually
immediately rushed inside the house and frisked the Zalameda committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
and Villafor and recovered from Zalameda’s right pocket a (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the
rectangular plastic sachet containing white crystalline view of the arresting officer.
substances. The police also found on top of the bed aluminum Here, the prosecution successfully established that the
foils, three (3) plastic sachets containing traces of white Zalameda was arrested in flagrante delicto. Under the
crystalline substance, among others. The police handcuffed circumstances, the police did not have enough time to secure a
Zalameda and Villaflor, informed them of their rights and their search warrant considering the time element involved in the
violation of R.A. No. 9165, and brought them to the police process (i.e., a pot session may not be for an extended period of
station. Forensic Chemical Officer found the specimens time and it was then 5:15 a.m.). At the place, the responding
submitted to be positive for the presence of shabu. Urine tests police officers saw Zalameda and Villaflor sniffing smoke.
conducted also yielded a positive result. There was therefore sufficient probable cause for the police
officers to believe that Zalameda and Villaflor were then and transparent plastic bags containing white crystalline substance
there committing a crime. (b) cash (c) one electronic and one mechanical scales; and (d)
In the course of the arrest, Zalameda and Villaflor were frisked, an unlicensed Pistol with magazine. Then and there, Wang
which search yielded the prohibited drug in the Zalameda’s resisted the warrantless arrest and search.
possession. The police, aside from seeing Villaflor throw away Three (3) separate Informations were filed against Lawrence C.
a tooter, also saw various drug paraphernalia scattered on top of Wang (violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, Illegal Possession
Zalameda’s bed. These circumstances were sufficient to justify of Firearms, COMELEC Gun Ban). When he prosecution
the warrantless search and seizure that yielded one (1) heat- rested its case. Wang filed his undated Demurrer to Evidence,
sealed plastic sachet of shabu. praying for his acquittal and the dismissal of the three (3) cases
In this regard, Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court states: against him for lack of a valid arrest and search warrants and
Section 13. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest. A person the inadmissibility of the prosecution’s evidence against him.
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous The respondent judge, the Hon. Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr.
weapons or anything which may have been used or granted Wang’s Demurrer to Evidence and acquitting him of all
constitute proof in the commission of an offense charges for lack of evidence.
without a search warrant.
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view" ISSUES:
of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that Whether or not this is a case of lawful arrest, search and seizure.
view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. - NO
This doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the RULING:
evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on warrantless
in a position from which he can view a particular area; arrest provide:
(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace
inadvertent; and officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the arrest a person:
item he observes may be evidence of a crime, a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
All the requirements for a lawful search and seizure are present commit an offense;
in this case. The police officers had prior justification to be at b) When an offense has just been committed, and he
Zalameda’s place. In the course of their lawful intrusion, they has probable cause to believe based on personal
inadvertently saw the various drug paraphernalia scattered on knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to
the bed. As these items were plainly visible, the police officers be arrested has committed it; and
were justified in seizing them. 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 is temporarily confined
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HON. PERFECTO while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
A.S. LAGUIO, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC transferred from one confinement to another.
(WON) For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante
Note: Laws/Principles/Doctrines are underlined. delicto under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to be valid, two
requisites must concur:
FACTS: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
Police operatives of the Public Assistance and Reaction Against indicating that he has just committed, is actually
Crime of the Department of Interior and Local Government, committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
arrested SPO2 de Dios, Anoble and Arellano, for unlawful (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the
possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Teck view of the arresting officer.
and Junio were identified as the source of the drug. An The facts and circumstances surrounding the present case did
entrapment operation was then set. Teck and Junio were then not manifest any suspicious behavior on the part of private
arrested. They did not disclose their source of shabu but Wang that would reasonably invite the attention of the police.
admitted that they were working for Wang. They also disclosed He was merely walking from the Maria Orosa Apartment and
that their employer (Wang) could be found at the Maria Orosa was about to enter the parked car when the police operatives
Apartment in Malate, Manila. arrested him, frisked and searched his person and commanded
The police operatives decided to look for Wang to shed light on him to open the compartment of the car. He was not committing
the illegal drug activities. Prosecution witness testified that any visible offense. Therefore, there can be no valid warrantless
Wang came out of the apartment and walked towards a parked arrest in flagrante delicto under paragraph (a) of Section 5. It is
BMW car. On nearing the car, the police officers approached settled that reliable information alone, absent any overt act
Wang, introduced themselves to him as police officers, asked indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within
his name and, upon hearing that he was Lawrence Wang, the view of the arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute
immediately frisked him and asked him to open the back probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.
compartment of the BMW car. When frisked, they confiscated Neither may the warrantless arrest be justified under paragraph
from Wang an unlicensed automatic Back-up Pistol loaded with (b) of Section 5. What is clearly established from the
ammunitions. The other members of the operatives searched the testimonies of the arresting officers is that Wang was arrested
BMW car and found inside it were the following items: (a) 32 mainly on the information that he was the employer of Teck and
Junio who were previously arrested and charged for illegal The fact that the arrest was not in flagrante delicto is of no
transport of shabu. These circumstances do not sufficiently consequence.
establish the existence of probable cause based on personal The arrest was validly executed pursuant to Section 5,
knowledge as required in paragraph (b) of Section 5. And paragraph (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court:
doubtless, the warrantless arrest does not fall under paragraph SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace
(c) of Section 5. The inevitable conclusion is that the officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
warrantless arrest was illegal. Ipso jure, the warrantless search person:
incidental to the illegal arrest is likewise unlawful. (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (WON) v. GERMAN (b) When an offense has in fact been committed and
AGOJO y LUNA he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
Note: Laws/Principles/Doctrines are underlined. person to be arrested has committed it; and,
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
FACTS: has escaped from a penal establishment or place where
Alonzo, a civilian informant, reported the drug trading activities he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
of appellant to Police Chief Inspector Ablang. Alonzo narrated while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
that Agojo agreed to sell him 200 grams of shabu. The sale was transferred from one confinement to another.
to take place in front of the Mercado Hospital in Tanauan, (Emphasis supplied)
Batangas. Ablang formed a team to conduct the buy-bust The second instance of lawful warrantless arrest covered by
operation. Agojo arrived at 11:30 p.m. Alonzo handed Agojo paragraph (b) cited above necessitates two stringent
the marked money. Agojo took a VHS box from his car and requirements before a warrantless arrest can be effected:
handed it to Alonzo. The buy-bust team immediately proceeded (1) an offense has just been committed; and
to the scene. Alonzo told the team Agojo had entered the (2) the person making the arrest has personal
hospital. Alonzo handed the VHS box to Ablang. Upon knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
examination, the box was found to contain four (4) plastic bags arrested has committed it.
of a crystalline substance which the team suspected was shabu. A review of the records shows that both requirements were met
Agojo then exited from the hospital via the emergency room in this case. From the spot where the buy-bust team was, they
door. Salazar introduced himself as a policeman and attempted definitely witnessed the sale of shabu took place. There was
to arrest him. Agojo resisted, but the other team members also a large measure of immediacy between the time of
handcuffed Agojo. Ablang opened Agojo Lancer and recovered commission of the offense and the time of the arrest. After
a .45 caliber pistol containing seven (7) bullets and a Panasonic Alonzo had signaled the buy-bust team, Ablang approached
cellular phone. The laboratory examination revealed that the Alonzo and immediately examined the tape. Soon thereafter, he
sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride. executed the ruse to make appellant go down, as the latter had
Agojo was charged with illegal sale of shabu to which he in the meantime gone up. Also, the absence of marked money
entered a not guilty plea upon arraignment. does not create a hiatus in the evidences provided that the
RTC found Agojo guilty. The case was brought on automatic prosecution adequately proves the sale.
review before the Supreme Court, since appellant was Finally, the assertion that the buy-bust team had the habit of
sentenced to death by the trial court. Agojo moved for new trial framing him up is similarly misleading. The appellate court
ad cautelam. Appellant claimed to have secured the statistical acquitted appellant of a previous charge of possession of shabu,
data list from the cash department of Bangko Sentral ng because he was charged with illegal sale rather than mere
Pilipinas that seven (7) of the P71,000.00 peso bills used in the possession of shabu. Hence, there was no attempt to frame him
buy-bust operation were bogus. up in a prior case, nor was there any evidence that such an
The Supreme Court transferred the case to the appellate court attempt to frame him up was made in this case.
for intermediate review. The appellate court addressed both the
errors raised in the appellants brief and the appellants motion
for new trial. It affirmed with modification the decision of the
trial court, but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua in line
with Republic Act No. 9346 (An Act Prohibiting the Imposition
of the Death Penalty in the Philippines), and because
aggravating circumstances were not present. The case was
again elevated to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Agojo’s arrest was valid (as he is arguing
that the arrest was not in flagrante delicto based on his
allegations that he was just framed-up by the buy-bust team and
there were discrepancies in the serial numbers of the buy-bust
money). - YES

RULING: