Plaintiff: People of the Philippines

Accused: Nazareno Villareal

G.R.: 201363 Date: March 18, 2013

RTC CA SC

Convicted the accused of
violation of illegal possession
of dangerous drugs
Affirmed the RTC’s conviction
order in toto
Acquitted the accused on the
ground that the SC find
probable cause on the part of
PO3 de Leon lacking upon
the arrest of the accused.

Factual Antecedents
● PO3 de Leon was driving his motorcycle on his way home when he saw the accused
from a distance of 8-10 meters, holding and scrutinizing in his hand a plastic sachet of
shabu.
● PO3 de Leon, member of the Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Unit, alighted from
his motorcycle, approached the accused and recognized him as someone he had
previously arrested for illegal drug possession.
● Upon seeing PO3 de Leon, the accused tried to escape but was immediately
apprehended and brought to the station.
● PO3 de Leon turned over the evidence to the investigator who in turn turned it over to
the forensic chemist who, upon examination, determined it to be methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
● In his arraignment, accused entered a plea of not guilty and claimed in his defense that
he was merely walking home when accosted and his money of Php 1,000 was stolen by
the officer. Both the RTC and the CA gave more credibility to the testimony of PO3 de
Leon
● RTC applied the plain plain view doctrine and the CA ruled that it finds present a clear
case of in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest under paragraphs a and b of section 5 rule
113.
● CA held that accused exhibited an overt act or strange conduct that reasonably aroused
suspicion aggravated by the existence of his past criminal citations and his attempt to
flee when PO3 de Leon approached him.

ISSUE
Was the warrantless arrest of the accused valid under Sec. 5 of Rule 113 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled on the negative. The warrantless arrest was invalid.
Sec. 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 paragraphs (a) and (b), the officer’s personal knowledge of the fact of the commission
of an offense is absolutely required.

Upon review, the Supreme Court finds it inconceivable how PO3 de Leon would be able to
identify with reasonable accuracy, from a distance of about 8-10 meters while driving a
motorcycle, a negligible and minuscule amount of powdery substance inside the plastic sachat
held by the accused. Also, that he had previously effected numerous arrests, all involving
shabu, is insufficient to create a conclusion that what he purportedly saw was indeed shabu.

No other overt act could be attributed to accused as to rouse suspicion that a crime had just
been committed, was committing, or was about to be committed. The act of walking along the
street examining something in one’s hands cannot be considered a criminal act

A previous arrest or existing criminal record, even for the same offense, will not suffice to satisfy
the exacting requirements provided under sec 5 of Rule 113 in order to justify a lawful
warrantless arrest. Personal knowledge of the arresting officer that a crime had in fact just been
committed is required. Personal knowledge in this case does not mean the reputation or past
criminal action of the accused.

Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt and must not always be attributed to guilt.