PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
NASARIO MOLINA y MANAMA @ "BOBONG" and GREGORIO MULA y MALAGURA @ "BOBOY", accused-
appellants.
G.R. No. 133917
February 19, 2001
Doctrine: Constitution mandates that searches and seizures be carried out in a reasonable fashion, that is, by
virtue or on the strength of a search warrant predicated upon the existence of a probable cause, which bolsters
and solidifies the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Thus, any evidence obtained in violation of
this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
In flagrante delicto, arresting officer must have personal knowledge of facts or circumstances convincingly
indicative or constitutive of probable cause
Case: Automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City finding Molina & Mula guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 8 of Dangerous Drug Act 1972.
FACTS:
In June 1996, SPO1 Marino Paguidopon received information about a marijuana pusher in Davao.
o His informer identified Mula, a motorcycle driver, as a pusher.
o Molina, on the other hand, was never identified prior arrest.
o Names and addresses of the accused-appellants came to the knowledge of SPO1
Paguidopon only after they were arrested.
o In August 8, 1996, Marino received information that the drug pushers will pass by at NHA,
Ma-a, Davao City that morning, so he called for assistance from the PNP. They were
dispatched to Marino's house where they'll wait for the drug pushers will pass by. Then
a "trisikad" carrying Molina and Mula passed by. The team boarded & overtook the trisikad.
Marino was left in his house 30 meters away from the Trisikad. At that point, Mula was holding a
black bag and handed it to Molina. Pamplona, a police officer, asked Molina to open the bag,
to which Molina replied "Boss, if possible, we will settle this."
Upon opening the bag, there were dried marijuana leaves inside. Mula and Molina were
handcuffed.
They filed a Demurrer to Evidence, saying that the marijuana was illegally seized
from them, therefore it is inadmissible. The trial court denied.
Motion for reconsideration was filed , but likewise denied.
The two then waived presentation of evidence, and opted to file a joint
memorandum. RTC found them guilty, and sentenced them to suffer the death
penalty.
The Branch Clerk of Court immediately elevated the case to the Supreme Court,
Manila, for the automatic review.
Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion praying for the acquittal of
both.
ISSUE: WON the arrest of Mula and Molina fall under the exception of in flagrante delicto in warrantless arrest?
HELD:
NO. Article III, Sec. 2 mandates that searches and seizures be carried out in a reasonable fashion, that is, upon the
existence of a probable cause.
The law also protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and holds evidence taken from such
incidents as inadmissible as evidence. Nonetheless, Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and
the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances:
(1) search incident to a lawful arrest;
(2) search of a moving motor vehicle;
(3) search in violation of customs laws;
(4) seizure of evidence in plain view;
(5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures;
(6) stop and frisk situations
In the case at bar, there should be a lawful arrest first, before a search can be made. It doesn't work the other
way around. Likewise, an arrest is legitimate if it's with a valid warrant of arrest. However, a police officer may
conduct warrantless arrests:
(a)In flagrante delicto -in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense
(b) Arrest effected in hot pursuit - 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.
(c) Arrest of escaped prisoners - person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from penal establishment or
a 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.
To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must concur:
(1) 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;
(2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
In the case at bar, accused-appellants manifested no outward indication that would justify their arrest. In
holding a bag on board a trisikad, could not be said to be committing, attempting to commit or have
committed a crime.
The arrest does not fall under the exceptions. Hence, the search conducted was likewise illegal. Consequently,
the marijuana seized could not be admitted as evidence.
Achievement of a drug-free society must not encroach on the fundamental rights and liberties of individuals
as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights
Also, it could not be said that the accused waived their right against unreasonable searches and seizure.
Implied waiver could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under intimidating or coercive
circumstances and is thus considered no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee.
FALLO: Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 17 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. ACQUITTED
AND RELEASED unless validly detained for another offense. No costs.
