PEOPLE vs MEDEL TANGLIBEN

G.R. No. L-63630 April 6, 1990

FACTS:

During a surveillance mission at the Victory Liner Terminal conducted by Patrolmen

Silverio Quevedo and Romeo L. Punzalan, and Barangay Tanod Macario Sacdalan, they noticed

Medel Tangliben acting suspiciously, carrying a traveling bag. When asked to open his bag,

Tangliben refused, but he later on ceded when the policemen introduced themselves. The officers

then discovered inside the bag that there were marijuana leaves and Tangliben was brought to the

police headquarters where he was charged of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425

(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended). The RTC then found Tangliben guilty for the said

violation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure conducted by the officers?

RULING:

Yes. There was a valid search and seizure conducted by the officers. The law as provided

for in Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) states that: “. . . 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.” The court finds that search was

done in flagrante delicto as he was carrying a marijuana at the time of his arrest. There be no

need for a search warrant because the law provides in Section 12 of Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules

on Criminal Procedure that “A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons

or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search

warrant”. The warrantless search was incident to a lawful arrest and thus valid. Since the search

was valid, the evidence obtained was admissible in court. The court then ruled that Tangliben

was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous

Drugs Act of 1972 as amended).