ABRAHAM MICLAT JR. v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

656 SCRA 539 | August 31, 2011
Peralta, J.

Doctrines:
1. An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to
raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this
ground before arraignment.
2. Under the plain view doctrine, the law enforcement officer must lawfully make an
initial intrusion and the object which may incriminate the accused must be open to
eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.

FACTS
Petitioner in the case assails the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the
decision of the RTC convicting petitioner of violation of Section 11, Art. II of the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002. It is alleged that petitioner have in his possession, custody and control shabu
weighing 0.24 gram in violation of the said law. According to the prosecution, P/Insp Jose
Valencua received an INFOREP Memo from Camp Crame pertaining to the illicit and down-
right drug-trading activities being undertaken along Caloocan involving petitioner and one Mic
or Jojo. Pursuant to said report, a surveillance team was formed and proceeded to the target area
to verify with their informant to verify said report. When they reached the area, the informant
pointed out to a certain house and PO3 Antonio positioned himself at the perimeter of the house,
peeped inside the house thru a small opening in the curtain covered window and saw petitioner
arranging several pieces of small plastic sachets of which he believed was shabu. PO3 Antonio
then went inside the house and when he introduced himself to the petitioner, the same voluntarily
surrendered the sachets.
The petitioner belies all these assertions and contends that he was watching television
with his sister and father when they suddenly heard a commotion prompting them to go down.
Several individuals in civilian clothes introduced themselves as raiding police and expressed
their purpose of arresting the petitioner. When he and his father tried to plead his case, the police
kicked him at the back and they were handcuffed and brought to the police station. In there, PO3
Pagsolingan showed petitioner a small piece of plastic sachet containing shabu which was
allegedly recovered from their house. Petitioner was later detained.
The RTC convicted the petitioner of the crime charged. Petitioner then sought recourse
before the CA who then issued the assailed decision which affirmed the decision of the RTC.
The CA also held that all the evidence presented by the prosecution were admissible against the
petitioner and that it is undisputed that he was informed of his constitutional rights when he was
arrested. Aggrieved, petitioner filed the present appeal in this court questioning the legality of
the arrest and seizure of the suspected drug sachets.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the petitioner can question the legality of the arrest and the seizure? – NO.
It is a well-settled rule that an accused is stopped from assailing any irregularity
of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information
against him on this ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of
arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed
waived. In the present case, the petitioner raised no objection to the irregularity of his
arrest before his arraignment and actively participated in the trial hence, he is now
estopped from invoking such irregularities.

2. W/N the arrest was lawful? -YES.

Even assuming arguendo that the petitioner is not estopped from questioning the
legality of his arrest and the seizure made, the same must still fail for lack of merit.
Petitioner contends that being seen in the act of arranging several plastic sachets inside
their house by one of the arresting officers who was peeping through a window is not
sufficient reason for the police authorities to enter his house without a valid search
warrant and/or warrant of arrest. Moreover, peeping through a curtain-covered window
cannot be contemplated as within the meaning of the plain view doctrine, rendering the
warrantless arrest unlawful.
However, one of the recognized exceptions in the need of warrant of arrests is
when an accused was caught in flagrante delicto which contemplates a situation in which
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 such overt act is done in
the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
In the present case, the petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto by the agents of
the Station Drug Enforcement Unit of Caloocan Police during its surveillance operation.
PO3 Antonio, through petitioner’s window saw him arranging the sachets with suspected
shabu and clearly was exposed in his plain view. After this, he entered the house of the
petitioner, introduced himself to which petitioner voluntarily surrendered the four
sachets. It is also said that PO3 Antonio informed petitioner of his constitutional rights.
By virtue of such circumstances prior to and surrounding the arrest of the arrest of the
petitioner, it is clear that he was arrested in flagrante delicto as he was committing a
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, within the view of the arresting officer.

3. W/N the seized drugs are admissible as evidence against petitioner? – YES.
The same can be said for the admissibility of the seized drugs. In the case at bar,
petitioner was caught arranging the plastic sachets in plain view of PO3 Antonio and he
also voluntarily surrendered the same to the latter when PO3 Antonio introduced himself
and his authority. The seizure made was not only incidental to a lawful arrest but also
falls under the purview of plain view doctrine. Under the plain view doctrine, the
following elements must be present: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the
evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can
view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. All the elements are present in this case,
hence the seized drugs are admissible as evidence against the petitioner.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated October 13,
2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 28846 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2