G.R. No.

182534 September 2, 2015

ONGCOMA HADJI HOMAR, petitioner
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent

FACTS:
Ongcoma Hadji Romar is appealing the conviction under Republic Act
No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case stems
from an arrest on August 20, 2002, when PO1 Eric Tan and civilian agent
Ronald Tangcoy, acting on orders, approached Romar for jaywalking on
Roxas Boulevard. During a search, Tangcoy found a knife on Romar, and a
subsequent search led to the discovery of a plastic sachet containing 0.03
grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Romar denied guilt,
asserting that he was unjustly detained after being accused of jaywalking
and carrying a knife for ordinary use. The Regional Trial Court (RTC)
convicted Romar, deeming the officers’ actions lawful and dismissing
Romar’s denial. The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC decision, asserting
that Romar’s arrest for jaywalking was legal, justifying subsequent search
and seizure of shabu. Romar contends that the evidence should be
inadmissible due to an unlawful arrest and challenges the sufficiency of the
prosecution’s case.

How did the case reach the Supreme Court?

The case involving Ongcoma Hadji Romar reached the Supreme Court
through a petition for review on certiorari, falling under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. Romar filed this petition seeking the reversal of the Court of
Appeal’s decision dated January 10, 2008, and its resolution dated April 11,
2008. The Court of Appeals had affirmed the conviction by the Regional
Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 02-0986, which found Romar guilty of
violating Republic Act No. 9165.

1. August 20, 2002: Ongcoma Hadji Romar is arrested for jaywalking on

Roxas Boulevard. During a search, a knife is found on him, and a
subsequent search leads to the discovery of plastic sachet containing
0.03 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
2. Arraignment: Romar pleads not guilty during arraignment.
3. Trial in the Regional Trial Court (RTC):

Page 1 of 3
 • RTC Decision: The RTC convicts Romar, presuming that the
arresting officers performed their duties regularly and dismissing
Romar’s defense of denial. The court finds him guilty of violating
Republic Act No. 9165.
4. Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA):
• Romar appeals the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals.
• CA Decision (January 10, 2008): The Court of Appeals affirms the
RTC’s decision, stating that Romar’s arrest for jaywalking was
lawful, justifying the subsequent search and seizure of shabu. The
CA cites Section 5, paragraph (a) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure.
• CA Resolution (April 11, 2008): Romar files a motion for
reconsideration, but the CA denies the motion, upholding its
previous decision.
5. Petition to the Supreme Court:
• Romar files a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme
Court, seeking the reversal of the CA decision.
• Grounds for Appeal: Romar argues that the shabu’s admission as
evidence is inadmissible due to an unlawful arrest, challenges the
validity of the search under Section 13, Rule 126, and criticizes the
non-presentation of a key witness.

ISSUE:
Whether the arrest of Ongcoma Hadji Romar for jaywalking and the
subsequent search and seizure, which led to the discovery of
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), were conducted in accordance
with the law, thus rendering the evidence admissible in court.

RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ongcoma Hadji Romar, holding
that his arrest for jaywalking and the subsequent search and seizure were
not conducted in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that the
prosecution failed to prove a lawful warrantless arrest preceding the search,
a requirement for admissibility of evidence. Citing constitutional guarantees
against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Court invoked Section 5,
Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which outlines the
occasions when a person may be lawfully arrested without a warrant. The
Court applied the two requisites for a valid in flagrante delicto arrest,
requiring the individual to execute an overt act indicating the commission

Page 2 of 3
of a crime in the presence of the arresting officer. It further referenced the
Luz vs. People of the Philippines case, asserting that an arrest must be
intended for an individual to be considered in custody, and a subsequent
search must be lawful. The Court found that Romar’s arrest did not meet
these criteria, rendering the seized shabu inadmissible as evidence and
justifying his acquittal.

Page 3 of 3