G.R. No.

197788, February 29, 2012

RODEL LUZ y ONG vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Facts:
PO3 Emmanuel L. Alteza testified that he saw the accused driving a motorcycle without a helmet
and so he flagged him down. He invited the accused to come inside their sub-station since the
place where he flagged down the accused is almost in front of the sub-station to where he is
assigned as a traffic enforcer. The accused violated a municipal ordinance which requires all
motorcycle drivers to wear helmet while driving said motor vehicle. While the officers were issuing
a citation ticket for violation of municipal ordinance, PO3 Alteza noticed that the accused was
uneasy and kept on reaching something from his jacket. He was alerted and told the accused to
take out the contents of his jacket’s pocket as the latter may have a weapon inside it. The accused
obliged, slowly put out the contents of his jacket’s pocket which included two plastic sachets of
suspected shabu.
The RTC convicted petitioner of illegal possession of dangerous drugs as the substances are
positive of methampethamine hydrochloride. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the RTCs Decision.
Upon a petition for reiew on certiorari, petitioner claims that there was no lawful search and
seizure, because there was no lawful arrest. He claims that the finding that there was a lawful
arrest was erroneous, since he was not even issued a citation ticket or charged with violation of
the city ordinance. Even assuming there was a valid arrest, he claims that he had never consented
to the search conducted upon him.
Issue:
Whether or not the arrest, searches and seizure were invalid.
Held:
Yes, there was no valid arrest. When he was flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he
was not, ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested. There being no valid arrest, the
warrantless search that resulted from it was likewise illegal.
Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the general procedure for dealing
with a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of the drivers license of
the latter. At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his citation ticket, petitioner could
not be said to have been under arrest. rior to the issuance of the ticket, the period during which
petitioner was at the police station may be characterized merely as waiting time.
The subject items seized during the illegal arrest are inadmissible. The drugs are the very corpus
delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Thus, their inadmissibility precludes
conviction and calls for the acquittal of the accused.

Umil vs. Ramos

FACTS: This consolidated case of 8 petitions for habeas corpus assails the validity of the arrests
and searches made by the military on the petitioners. The arrests relied on the “confidential
information” that the authorities received. Except for one case where inciting to sedition was
charged, the rest are charged with subversion for being a member of the New People’s Army.

RULING: The arrests were legal. Regarding the subversion cases, the arrests were legal since
subversion is a form of a continuing crime – together with rebellion, conspiracy or proposal to
commit rebellion/subversion, and crimes committed in furtherance thereof or in connection
therewith. On the inciting to sedition case, the arrest was legal since an information was filed prior
to his arrest. Lastly, the arrests were not fishing expeditions but a result of an in-depth surveillance
of NPA safe houses pinpointed by none other than members of the NPA.
The right to preliminary investigation should be exercised by the offender as soon as possible.
Otherwise, it would be considered as impliedly waived and the filing of information can proceed.
This sort of irregularity is not sufficient to set aside a valid judgment upon a sufficient complaint
and after a trial free from error.

DISSENT: (Sarmiento, J.) The “confidential information” was nothing but hearsay. The searches
and arrests made were bereft of probable cause and that the petitioners were not caught in
flagrante delicto or in any overt act. Utmost, the authorities was lucky in their fishing expeditions.

SALVADOR V. REBELLION v.. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 175700. July 05,
2010.
FACTS:
When two policemen saw Salvador Rebellon and another person exchanging something, the
officers introduced themselves and when asked what he was holding, petitioner handed three
strips of aluminum foil. Upon search, the officers found a sachet of shabu.
The RTC found him guilty of possession of illegal drugs which the CA affirmed. Petitioner that the
shabu found during search is inadmissible as the arrest was not valid.
ISSUE: Whether the warrantless arrest was valid.
RULING:
The SC ruled in the affirmative. But the SC made it clear the even if the warrant was not valid, it
would still prevail because petitioner did not file a motion to quash regarding this before entering
his plea.
In answering the petitioner's issue, the Sc rules that the arrest was valid and it was an arrest in
flagrante delicto. After the suspicion of the officers was aroused, they introduced themselves and
from a distance of the officers saw a sachet with white crystalline substance which they
confiscated. Consequently, the results of the attendant search and seizure were admissible in
evidence to prove his guilt of the offense charged.
Villamor y Tayson v. People, G.R. No. 200396, March 22, 2017. FIRST DIVISION. DEL
CASTILLO, J.
Parties:
Petitioners – Martin Villamor and Victor Bonaobra
Respondent – People of the Philippines
In an in flagrante delicto arrest, two elements 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. Moreover, it must be properly established that suspect had just committed, or
were actually committing, or attempting to commit a crime and that said act or acts were done in
the presence of the arresting officers.
At around 8:30 a.m., Villamor went to Bonaobra's house to pay a debt he owed to the latter's wife.
Villamor gave Bonaobra P2,000.00 which the latter placed on top of the table. Bonaobra then went
outside the house to answer his cellphone. When Bonaobra was at the door, an arresting officer
kicked the fence of Bonaobra's house, grabbed Bonaobra's right arm, and said, "Caught in the act
ka!". Petitioners were then made to board the service vehicle and brought in for investigation at the
police headquarters. Villamor was charged with violation RA 9287 for collecting and soliciting bets
for an illegal numbers game. During trial it was established that the arresting officers were
positioned some 15 to 20 meters away from petitioners. Should the petitioners’ conviction be
upheld?

No. In an in flagrante delicto arrest, two elements 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.
The right of the petitioners against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated by the
arresting officers. The Constitution requires a judicial warrant based on the existence of probable
cause before a an arrest may be effected. It was not properly established that petitioners had just
committed, or were actually committing, or attempting to commit a crime and that said act or acts
were done in the presence of the arresting officers. Considering that 15 to 20 meters is a
significant distance between the police officers and the petitioners, it is doubtful that the police
officers were able to determine that a criminal activity was ongoing to allow them to validly effect
an in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest.
People vs. Sy Chua, G.R. Nos. 136066-67, February 4, 2003
FACTS:
Accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua was charged with violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A.
6425, as amended by R.A. 7659, and for Illegal Possession of Ammunitions and Illegal
Possession of Drugs in two separate Informations. SPO2 Nulud and PO2 Nunag received a report
from their confidential informant that accused-appellant was about to deliver drugs that night at the
Thunder Inn Hotel in Balibago, Angeles City. So, the PNP Chief formed a team of operatives. The
group positioned themselves across McArthur Highway near Bali Hai Restaurant, fronting the
hotel.
The other group acted as their back up. Afterwards, their informer pointed to a car driven by
accused-appellant which just arrived and parked near the entrance of the hotel. After accused-
appellant alighted from the car carrying a sealed Zest-O juice box, SPO2Nulud and PO2 Nunag
hurriedly accosted him and introduced themselves as police officers. As accused-appellant pulled
out his wallet, a small transparent plastic bag with a crystalline substance protruded from his right
back pocket. Forthwith, SPO2 Nulud subjected him to a body search which yielded twenty (20)
pieces of live .22 caliber firearm bullets from his left back pocket. When SPO2 Nunag peeked into
the contents of the Zest-O box, he saw that it contained a crystalline substance. SPO2 Nulud
instantly confiscated the small transparent plastic bag, the Zest-O juice box, the twenty (20) pieces
of .22 caliber firearm bullets and the car used by accused-appellant. SPO2 Nulud and the other
police operatives who arrived at the scene brought the confiscated items to the office of Col.
Guttierez at the PNP Headquarters in Camp Pepito, Angeles City.
Accused-appellant vehemently denied the accusation against him and narrated a different version
of the incident. Accused-appellant alleged that he was driving the car of his wife to follow her and
his son to Manila. He felt sleepy, so he decided to take the old route along McArthur Highway. He
stopped in front of a small store near Thunder Inn Hotel to buy cigarettes and candies. While at
the store, he noticed a man approaches and examines the inside of his car. When he called the
attention of the onlooker, the man immediately pulled out a .45 caliber gun and made him face his
car with raised hands. The man later on identified himself as a policeman.
During the course of the arrest, the policeman took out his wallet and instructed him to open his
car. He refused, so the policeman took his car keys and proceeded to search his car. At this time,
the police officer’s companions arrived at the scene in two cars. PO2 Nulud, who just arrived at the
scene, pulled him away from his car in a nearby bank, while the others searched his car.
Thereafter, he was brought to a police station and was held inside a bathroom for about fifteen
minutes until Col. Guttierez arrived, who ordered his men to call the media. In the presence of
reporters, Col. Guttierez opened the box and accusedappellant was made to hold the box while
pictures were being taken. The lower court acquitted Sy Chua for the Illegal Possession of
Ammunitions, yet convicted him for Illegal Possession of 1,955.815 grams of shabu. Hence, this
appeal to the Court.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the arrest of accused-appellant was lawful; and (2) Whether the search of his person
and the subsequent confiscation of shabu allegedly found on him were conducted in a lawful and
valid manner.
HELD:
The lower court believed that since the police received information that the accused will distribute
illegal drugs that evening at the Thunder Inn Hotel and its vicinities. The police officer had to act
quickly and there was no more time to secure a search warrant. The search is valid being akin to a
“stop and frisk”. The trial court confused the concepts of a “stop-and-frisk” and of a search
incidental to a lawful arrest.
These two types of warrantless searches differ in terms of the requisite quantum of proof before
they maybe validly effected and in their allowable scope. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest,
as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search, the legality of the arrest is
questioned, e.g., whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for conducting a search.
In this instance, the law requires that there first be arrest before a search can be made — the
process cannot be reversed. Accordingly, for this exception to apply, two elements 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. The two aforementioned elements are lacking
in the case at bar. Accused-appellant did not act in a suspicious manner.
For all intents and purposes, there was no overt manifestation that accused-appellant has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime. “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. With regard to the concept of “stop and frisk”: mere suspicion or a hunch will not
validate a “stop-and-frisk”.
A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions,
to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. Finally, a “stop-
and-frisk” serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and
detection for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause;
and (2) the interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to
assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could
unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.
A stop-and-frisk was defined as the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate
him, and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband. It should also be emphasized that a search and
seizure should precede the arrest for this principle to apply. The foregoing circumstances do not
obtain in the case at bar. To reiterate, accused-appellant was first arrested before the search and
seizure of the alleged illegal items found in his possession.
The apprehending police operative failed to make any initial inquiry into accused appellant’s
business in the vicinity or the contents of the Zest-O juice box he was carrying. The apprehending
police officers only introduced themselves when they already had custody of accused-appellant. In
the case at bar, neither the in flagrante delicto nor the “stop and frisk” principles is applicable to
justify the warrantless arrest and consequent search and seizure made by the police operatives on
accused-appellant. Wherefore, accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua is hereby Acquitted.
People v. Sucro G.R. No. 93239 March 18, 1991 195 SCRA 388 (1991)
Facts: On March 21, 1989, Pat. Roy Fulgencio, a member of the INP, Kalibo, Aklan, was
instructed by P/Lt. Vicente Seraspi, Jr. (Station Commander of the INP Kalibo, Aklan) to monitor
the activities of appellant Edison Sucro, because of information gathered by Seraspi that Sucro
was selling marijuana. As planned, at about 5:00 P.M. on said date, Pat. Fulgencio Positioned
himself under the house of a certain Arlie Regalado at C. Quimpo Street. Adjacent to the house of
Regalado, about 2 meters away, was a chapel. Thereafter, Pat. Fulgencio saw appellant enter the
chapel, taking something which turned out later to be marijuana from the compartment of a cart
found inside the chapel, and then return to the street where he handed the same to a buyer, Aldie
Borromeo. After a while appellant went back to the chapel and again came out with marijuana
which he gave to a group of persons. It was at this instance that Pat. Fulgencio radioed P/Lt.
Seraspi and reported the activity going on. P/Lt. Seraspi instructed Pat. Fulgencio to continue
monitoring developments. At about 6:30 P.M., Pat. Fulgencio again called up Seraspi to report that
a third buyer later Identified as Ronnie Macabante, was transacting with appellant. At that point,
the team of P/Lt. Seraspi proceeded to the area and while the police officers were at the Youth
Hostel at Maagma St., Pat. Fulgencio told P/Lt. Seraspi to intercept Macabante and appellant.
P/Lt. Seraspi and his team caught up with Macabante at the crossing of Mabini and Maagma Sts.
in front of the Aklan Medical Center. Upon seeing the police, Macabante threw something to the
ground which turned out to be a tea bag of marijuana. When confronted, Macabante readily
admitted that he bought the same from appellant (Edison Sucro) in front of the chapel. The police
team was able to overtake and arrest appellant at the corner of C. Quimpo and Veterans Sts. The
police recovered 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from the cart inside the chapel and another
teabag from Macabante, The teabags of marijuana were sent to the PC-INP Crime Laboratory
Service, at Camp Delgado, Iloilo City for analysis. The specimens were all found positive of
marijuana.
Issue: Whether the police officer can arrest the accused without any arrest and search warrant
when the latter committed the crime in front of the former.
Held: Yes, Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the instances
where arrest without warrant is considered lawful. The rule states that arrest without warrant, when
lawful. Is when 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; When 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.
The records show that Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalado’s house at C. Quimpo Street to monitor
the activities of the accused who was earlier reported to be selling marijuana at a chapel two (2)
meters away from Regalado’s house. Fulgencio, within a distance of two meters saw Sucro
conduct his nefarious activity. He saw Sucro talk to some persons, go inside the chapel, and
return to them and exchange some things. These, Sucro did three times during the time that he
was being monitored. Fulgencio would then relay the on-going transaction to P/Lt. Seraspi.
People vs. Gerente, GR Nos. 95847-48, March 10, 1993
Facts:
Edna Edwina Reyes testified that appellant Gabriel Gerente, together with Fredo Echigoren and
Totoy Echigoren, started drinking liquor and smoking marijuana in the house of the appellant
which is about six (6) meters away from the house of the prosecution witness who was in her
house on that day. She overheard the three men talking about their intention to kill Clarito Blace.
Appellant allegedly agreed: “Sigue, papatayin natin mamaya.” Fredo and Totoy Echigoren and
Gerente carried out their plan to kill Clarito Blace at about 2:00 p.m. of the same day. The
prosecution witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, testified that she witnessed the killing. Fredo Echigoren
struck the first blow against Clarito Blace, followed by Totoy Echigoren and Gabriel Gerente who
hit him twice with a piece of wood in the head and when he fell, Totoy Echigoren dropped a hollow
block on the victim’s head. Thereafter, the three men dragged Blace to a place behind the house
of Gerente. At about 4:00 p.m. of the same day, Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the Valenzuela Police
Station received a report from the Palo Police Detachment about a mauling incident. He went to
the Valenzuela District Hospital where the victim was brought. He was informed by the hospital
officials that the victim died on arrival. The cause of death was massive fracture of the skull
caused by a hard and heavy object. Right away, Patrolman Urrutia, together with Police Corporal
Romeo Lima and Patrolman Alex Umali, proceeded to Paseo de Blas where the mauling incident
took place. There they found a piece of wood with blood stains, a hollow block and two roaches of
marijuana. They were informed by the prosecution witness, Edna Edwina Reyes that she saw the
killing and she pointed to Gabriel Gerente as one of the three men who killed Clarito. The
policemen proceeded to the house of the appellant who was then sleeping. They told him to come
out of the house and they introduced themselves as policemen. Patrolman Urrutia frisked
appellant and found a coin purse in his pocket which contained dried leaves wrapped in cigarette
foil. The dried leaves were sent to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination. The
Forensic Chemist found them to be marijuana. When arraigned the appellant pleaded not guilty to
both charges. A joint trial of the two cases was held. The trial court rendered a decision convicting
him of Violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6425 and of Murder.
Issue:
Whether the Personal Knowledge of the policeman of the crime committed by the accused is
justified and valid in arresting the latter without securing an arrest and search warrant.
Held:
Yes, “To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the evidence and
tokens of his crime without a warrant, would be to leave society, to a large extent, at the mercy of
the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape in
many instances.” The policemen arrested Gerente only some 3 hours after Gerente and his
companions had killed Blace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and when they inspected the
scene of the crime, they found the instruments of death: a piece of wood and a concrete hollow
block which the killers had used to bludgeon him to death. The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes,
reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the
killers. Under those circumstances, since the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent
death of Blace and of facts indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him, they could
lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant. If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a
warrant, he would have fled the law as his two companions did. The search conducted on
Gerente’s person was likewise lawful because it was made as an incident to a valid arrest. This is
in accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that Search
incident to lawful arrest. — 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 frisk and search of appellant’s person upon his arrest was a permissible precautionary
measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for the person who is about to be arrested
may be armed and might attack them unless he is first disarmed.