Bucu, Jorland Marvin H.

2E - 2014066836

Franklin B. Vaporoso and Joelren B. Tulilik vs People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 238659, June 03, 2019
Justice Perlas-Bernabe

Facts:
Petitioners are charged with the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous drugs.
Respondents were apprehended by a police officer who was patrolling along the National
highway. The police officer noticed the two petitioners aboard a motorcycle with a back rider
holding a lady bag which appeared to be taken from a parked vehicle. When the officer shouted,
they sped away. The officer was approached by the victim of said robbery then which prompted
the officer to chase after the Petitioners until they reached a secluded area. The officer called for
back up and waited for the petitioners to come out and eventually they do but was apprehended
soon after
After acquiring the Petitioner’s belongings for the initial cursory body search , they
bought the them to the nearest police station to which they conducted a more “through search” to
which they found five plastic sachets crystalline substance which was tested to be shabu.
RTC found the petitioner’s guilty for the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous drugs
but petitioners appeal to the CA. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC stating that the arrest
was a lawful one and that the body search conducted was valid under the PNP Handbook on
searches.

Issue:
Whether or not the police officers conducted a valid warrantless arrest on petitioners

Ruling:
Supreme court reversed the decision and set aside the decision of the RTC and acquit the
petitioners. While the police officers validly conducted a warrantless arrest during the
commission of the crime and validly fulfilling the immediacy rule of Sec.5 (b), Rule 113 of the
rules of court in arrest made in Hot pursuit because the officers obtained personal knowledge that
a crime had just been committed and that he. did not waver in his continuous and unbroken
pursuit of petitioners until they were arrested.
However the Supreme Court declared that the while the first initial cursory body search
was valid because it was needed in order to protect both the officers and prevent destruction on
the pieces of evidence but did not yield the aforementioned drugs but on the second body search,
where it yielded the discovery of the drugs, was invalid because firstly there is substantial
amount of time had already elapsed from the time of the arrest from the time of the first body
search and lastly, the second search was conducted on the venue other than the place of actual
arrest.