PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE) VS.

RICARDO QUICHO (ACCUSED-APPELLANT)

The defense presented as witnesses accused-apellant, Ruben

Quicho and Noel Quicho.

The version of the prosecution is as follows:

On August 21, 2007, SP04 Jose Tan, the desk

officer on duty, received a call from an unidentified

caller reporting that there was a suspected robber

seen at Barangay lbayo, Balanga City, Bataan.

SP04 Jose Tan communicated the information to

SP02 Rommel Morales. At about 3:30 a.m., SP02

Rommel Morales radioed P02 Efren Bautista and

P03 Nadzmer Jainatul, who were then patrolling

Balanga City, Bataan and he instructed them to

proceed to the police station immediately. When

they arrived at the station, SP02 Rommel Morales

conducted a short briefing regarding the

anonymous call. He discussed the incident in

detail, i.e., there was a phone call received by

SP04 Jose Tan regarding an alleged robbery

suspect in the vicinity and there was a male

person carrying a bag and walking in zigzag

fashion or “susuray-suray sa pag/akad.”

Thereafter, SP02 Rommel Morales, P02 Efren

Bautista and P03 Nadzmer Jainatulwent to the

target area at Lerma Street, Barangay lbayo,

Balanga City, Bataan.

When they arrived in Lerma Street, they spotted

accusedappellant. They approached him and

asked where he was going. Accused-appellant

replied that he was on his way to Orion. They

noticed that aside from walking in a wobbly manner,

accusedappellant had red eyes and appeared

dazed or intoxicated but he did not smell of

liquor/alcohol. They suspected that he might be

under the influence of drugs. They asked

accused-appellant for his name and some proof of

his identification, however, he could not provide

any. Thus, they invited him to the police station

for verification.

Accused-appellant voluntarily agreed to go with them.

While at the police station, the police officers

conducted an interview of accused-appellant and

asked him for some identification. Still, he could not

show any. They requested accused-appellant to show

them the contents of the bag he was carrying. He then

opened his bag and took out a blue Rusty Lopez

plastic bag containing cotton buds, lighter, a pair of

scissors, aluminum foil, and an empty transparent

plastic sachet. SP02 Rommel Morales requested

accused-appellant to show the contents of his

pocket. Accused appellant took out a coin purse and

when asked to open it, the police officers found five (5)

pieces of plastic sachets containing shabu.

The version of the defense is as follows:

On August 21, 2007 at about 11:00 p.m.,

accused-appellant was alone in a rented room at

an apartelle in Barangay lbayo, Balanga City,

Bataan waiting for a certain Maritess, a prostitute.

Suddenly, four (4) men who introduced

themselves as Philippine Drug Enforcement

Agency (PDEA) operatives barged into the room

and one of them pointed a gun at him. The other

men then searched the room and they brought out

several plastic sachets of shabu. Accused

appellant denied the charges against him and

allged that he knew nothing about the sachets of

shabu. Thereafter, he was handcuffed and taken

to the police station at about 11:00 and 12:00 in

the evening. Accused-appellant’s brothers

Ruben Quicho and Noel Quicho corroborated

his testimony.

On July 18, 2017, the RTC rendered a

decision the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, viewed in the

light of the foregoing, judgment is

hereby rendered finding the accused

Ricardo Quicho guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime

charged and he is hereby sentenced

to an indeterminate penalty of

imprisonment ranging from lWELVE

(12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as

minimum, to lWENTY (20) YEARS,as

maximum,and to pay a fine of FOUR

HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS

(PHP400,000.00).

The accused i s entitled to the

entire period of his preventive

imprisonment in the computation of

his penalty.

The subject shabu are hereby

forfeited in favor of the government

and the Branch Clerk of Court is

hereby directed to forward said

 specimens to the Dangerous Drugs

Board, Manila for proper disposal.

SO ORDERED.”

On August 2, 2017, accused-appellant filed a

notice of appeal. On August 25, 2017, the RTC

gave due course to the appeal and elevated the

records of the case to this Court.

The appeal is meritorious.

Sec. 2, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution

mandates that a search and seizure must be

carried out through or on the strength of a judicial

warrant predicated upon the existence of

probable cause, absent which, such search and

seizure becomes “unreasonable” within the

meaning of said constitutional provision. To

protect the people from unreasonable searches

and seizures, Sec. 3 (2) of Art. Ill of the 1987

Constitution provides that evidence obtained from

unreasonable searches and seizures shall be

inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any

proceeding. In other words, evidence obtained

and confiscated on the occasion of such

unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed

tainted and should be excluded for being the

proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.

In warrantless arrests made pursuant to

Sec. 5 (a), Rule 113, two (2) elements must

concur, namely: (a) 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 (b) Such overt

act is done in the presence or within the view of

the arresting officer. On the other hand, Sec. 5

(b), Rule 113 requires for its application that at

the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just

been committed and the arresting officer had

personal knowledge of facts indicating that the

accused had committed it. Further, in both

instances, the officer's personal knowledge of

the fact of the commission of an offense is

essential. Under Sec. 5 (a), Rule 113 of the

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the

officer himself witnesses the crime; while in Sec.

5 (b) of the same, he knows for a fact that a

crime has just been committed.

One of the recognized exceptions to the

need for a warrant before a search may be

affected is a search incidental to a lawful

arrest. In this instance, the law requires that

there first be a lawful arrest before a search

can be made - the process cannot be

reversed. A lawful arrest may be effected with

or without a warrant With respect to the latter,

the parameters of Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should

- as a general rule - be complied with:

“Section 5. Arrest without warrant;

when lawful. - 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;

(b)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; and

(c)When the person to be arrested

is a prisoner who has escaped from a

penal establishment or place where he is

serving final judgment or is temporarily

confined while his case is pending, or has

escaped while being transferred from

one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a)

and (b) above, the person arrested without

 a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to

the nearest police station or jail and shall

be proceeded against in accordance with

Section 7 of Rule 112.”

In this case, the Court finds that there could

have been no lawful warrantless arrest made on

the person of accused-appellant. Records show

that prosecution witnesses P02 Efren Bautista

and P03 Nadzmer Jainatul had no personal

knowledge of the alleged anonymous phone call

received by SP04 Jose Tan. P02 Efren Bautista

and P03 Nadzmer proceeded with the arrest of

accusedappellant solely on account of the tip

received by SP04 Jose Tan. Apparently, they also

had no personal knowledge of the fact of the

commission of any offense, which resulted in the

search of accused appellant's person and the

seizure of the subject shabu.

The judgment dated July 18, 2017 rendered by

the Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Bataan in

Criminal Case No. 10949 must be REVERSED

and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant RICARDO

QUICHO should be ACQUITTED of the charge of

violation of Sec. 11, Article II of Republic Act No.

9165.