People v.

Molina
G.R. No. 133917- February 19, 2001
Ponente

Topic: Arrest (Warrantless Arrest)

Doctrine: For an in flagrante delicto arrest to be valid, the arresting officer must have personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances convincingly indicative of probable cause. “Reliable
Information” is not sufficient.

Petitioner: People of the Philippines

Respondent: Nasario Molina, Gregorio Mula

Case Summary:
SP01 Paguidopon received an information stating that the alleged pusher (respondents) will pass
by NHA, Davao City. The respondents were subsequently arrested without a warrant on the basis
of the information while they were riding their trisikad. They were subsequently searched (Police
insisted on opening their bags) and marijuana leaves were seized from them. RTC Davao
convicted them for illegal possession of drugs. The Supreme Court reversed the RTC’s
decision given that the arrest was unwarranted, since the requirement for probable cause for a
valid in flagrante delicto arrest was not present. SC ruled that the arrest does not fall under the
exception of in flagrante delicto arrests for a valid warrantless arrest. Following the exclusionary
rule, the seized marijuana leaves are inadmissible as evidence.

Facts:
Crime Charged Possession of Illegal Drugs (Section 9, RA6425 – Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972)
Accused Nasario Molina, Gregorio Mula
Complainant People of the Philippines (Accused were arrested by officials; No particular
complainants)
Where First Filed RTC Davao City; No judge mentioned

Pre-Trial Events:
 July 1996: SP01 Marino Paguidopon was informed about an alleged drug pusher in Davao
City. He was with his informer when a motorcycle passed by, and his informer pointed at the
driver, accused Mula, as the pusher.
 August 8, 1996: SP01 Paguidopon received an information that the alleged pusher will pass
by NHA, Davao City any time that morning. A police team was summoned to the house of
Paguidopon.
 A trisikad carrying the accused (Mula and Molina) passed by, and was apprehended by the
police. At that point, Molina was holding a black bag, which a certain SP01 Pamplona asked
to be opened. Molina replied “Boss, if possible we will settle this.” Pamplona insisted in
opening the bag, which revealed dried marijuana leaves. Both accused were handcuffed.

Trial court (RTC Davao):

 December 6, 1996: The accused filed a Demurrer to Evidence, contending that the marijuana
seized from them is inadmissible as eveidence for having been obtained in violation of their
consitutitional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Trial Court denied the
demurrer
 Arraignment: Pleaded not guilty
 Ruling: Both of the accused are guilty sentencing them to Death Penalty through lethal
injection

Court of Appeals: No CA in this case, since death penalty was imposed.

Supreme Court: Pursuant to RPC47 and ROC122, Section 10, the case was elevated to the
Supreme Court on automatic review.

Issues + Held: W/N the seized marijuana is inadmissible as evidence [YES, inadmissible due to
illegal search and seizure]
 The Exclusionary Rule enshrined in the constitution [Article III, Section 3(2)] applies in this
case. Without this rule, the right to privacy would be a form of words, valueless and
undeserving of mention in a perpetual charter of inestimable human liberties. Exceptions to
the General Rule:
o Search incident to a lawful arrest
o Search of a moving motor vehicle
o Search in violation of customs laws
o Seizure of evidence in plain view
o When the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and
seizures
o Stop and frisk situations (Terry search)
 The first exception must have a valid (with warrant) arrest which must precede the search.
Again, there are exceptions here:
o Arrest in flagrante delicto: The person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense
o Hot Pursuit: 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 be
arrested has committed it
o Arrest of escaped prisoners
 In the instant case, the RTC anchored its judgment finding that the warrantless arrest and the
subsequent searcg are valid because the accused were caught in flagrante delicto in
possession of drugs.
 For arrests in flagrante delicto to be valid, the arresting officer must have personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances convincingly indicative of probable cause 1. A
reasonable suspicion is founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the
peace officers making the arrest.
 As applied, it is settled that “reliable information” alone, absent any overt act indicative of
a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, are not
sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.
[People v. Mengote, Malacat v. Court of Appeals]. Two requisites:
o The person arrested must execute an overt act
o Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer
 In the case at bar, both accused manifested no outward indicatiion that would justify
their arrest. Saying “Boss, if possible we will settle this” is an equivocal statement which
standing alone will not constitute probable cause to effect an in flagrante delicto arrest.

1
An actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion
 o Added to this, the police officers do not personally know the name and the face of
the accused. For Paguidopon, he only saw Mula once when he was with his
informer.
 Hence, the arrest and subseqent search does not fall within the exceptions, therefore it
was an illegal arrest. The exclusionary rule shall apply. They are acquitted.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 17, in
Criminal Case No. 37, 264-96, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For lack of evidence to establish
their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellants Nasario Molina y Manamat alias
"Bobong" and Gregorio Mula y Malagura alias "Boboy", are ACQUITTED and ordered
RELEASED from confinement unless they are validly detained for other