G.R. No.

227038, July 31, 2017

JEFFREY MIGUEL Y REMEGIO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE

OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts:

Report received by Reynaldo Bahoyo and fellow Bantay

Bayan that there is a man showing his private part in a
public area. They operative discovered a visibly
intoxicated man (Jeffrey Miguel Remegio), identified as
the petitioner, on Kaong Street. They saw him urinating
and displaying his private parts. The Bantay Bayan search
the pocket of the petitioner. They saw 1 stick of cigarette
and 2 rolled paper of dried marijuana They seized the
items and took the petitioner to the police station. SPO3
Rafael Castillo seized the items and prepared an inventory
report. The rolled paper contained marijuana, and the
petitioner was found to be positive for methamphetamine
but negative for THC-metabolites, both dangerous drugs.
The investigation aimed to apprehend the suspect.

ISSUE: Whether or not the there is a valid warrantless

arrest and search and seizure.

DECISION:

No, according to Sec. 5(a) Infagrante Delicto of Rule 113

state that:

“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. “

In this case, the prosecution claims that the BB Bahoyo

and BB Velasquez simply responded to a purported report
of a man showing off his private parts at Kaong Street
which led to petitioner's arrest. On the other hand,
petitioner maintains that he was just urinating in front of
his workplace when the Bantay Bayan operatives
suddenly approached and questioned him, and thereafter,
frisked and arrested him. And no report or indication of
use/selling of illegal drug as mentioned in the cross
examination.

Moreover, the conduct of warrantless seizure is

unconstitutional. According to Art. III of 1987
Constitution, search and seizure must be carried out
through or on the strength of a judicial warrant
predicated upon the existence of probable cause.

In the case at bar, the bantay bayan failed to prove that

there is a probable cause of violation of RA. 9165. And in
this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful
arrest before search can be made.