People v. Molina Facts: In June 1996, SPO1 Marino Paguidopon, then a mem er o! the P"P detailed at Precinct "o.

#, Matina, $avao %it&, received an in!ormation regarding the presence o! an alleged mari'uana pusher in $avao %it&.( )he !irst time he came to see the said mari'uana pusher in person *as during the !irst *ee+ o! Jul& 1996. SPO1 Paguidopon *as then *ith his in!ormer *hen a motorc&cle passed &. ,is in!ormer pointed to the motorc&cle driver, accused-appellant Mula, as the pusher. .s to accused-appellant Molina, SPO1 Paguidopon had no occasion to see him e!ore the arrest. Moreover, the names and addresses o! the accused- appellants came to the +no*ledge o! SPO1 Paguidopon onl& a!ter the& *ere arrested./ SPO1 Paguidopon received an in!ormation that the alleged pusher *ill e passing at ",., Maa, $avao %it& an& time that morning. 9 ,e called !or assistance at the P"P, Precinct "o. #, Matina, $avao %it&, *hich immediatel& dispatched the team o! SPO0 $ionisio%lori el 1team leader2, SPO3 Paguidopon 1 rother o! SPO1 Marino Paguidopon2, and SPO1 Pamplona, to proceed to the house o! SPO1 Marino Paguidopon *here the& *ould *ait !or the alleged pusher to pass &.14 In the morning o! .ugust /, 1996, *hile the team *ere positioned in the house o! SPO1 Paguidopon, a 5trisi+ad5 carr&ing the accusedappellants passed &. .t that instance, SPO1 Paguidopon pointed to the accused-appellants as the pushers. )hereupon, the team oarded their, vehicle and overtoo+ the 5trisi+ad.511 SPO1 Paguidopon *as le!t in his house, thirt& meters !rom *here the accusedappellants *ere accosted.13 )he police o!!icers then ordered the 5trisi+ad5 to stop. .t that point, accused-appellant Mula *ho *as holding a lac+ ag handed the same to accused-appellant Molina. Su se6uentl&, SPO1 Pamplona introduced himsel! as a police o!!icer and as+ed accused-appellant Molina to open the ag.1# Molina replied, "Boss, if possible we will settle this." 10 SPO1 Pamplona insisted on opening the ag, *hich revealed dried mari'uana leaves inside. )herea!ter7 accused-appellants Mula and Molina *ere handcu!!ed & the police o!!icers.18 .ccused-appellants, through counsel, 'ointl& !iled a $emurrer to 9vidence, contending that the mari'uana allegedl& sei:ed !rom them is inadmissi le as evidence !or having een o tained in violation o! their constitutional right against unreasona le searches and sei:ures.16 )he demurrer *as denied & the trial court.

Issue: ),.) ),9 M.;IJ<.". IS I" .$MISSI=>9 I" 9?I$9"%9 FO; ,.?I"@ =99" S9IA9$ I" ?IO>.)IO" OF .PP9>>.")SB %O"S)I)<)IO".> ;I@,)S .@.I"S) <";9.SO".=>9, S9.;%,9S ."$ S9IA<;9SC ,9>$: )he !undamental la* o! the land mandates that searches and sei:ures e carried out in a reasona le !ashion, that is, & virtue or on the strength o! a search *arrant predicated upon the eDistence o! a pro a le cause. )he pertinent provision o! the %onstitution provides: S9%. 3. )he right o! the people to e secure in their persons, houses, papers, and e!!ects against unreasona le searches and sei:ures o! *hatever nature and !or an& purpose shall e inviola le, and no search *arrant or *arrant o! arrest shall issue eDcept upon pro a le cause to e determined personall& & the 'udge a!ter eDamination under oath or a!!irmation o! the complainant and the *itnesses he ma& produce, and particularl& descri ing the place to e searched and the persons or things to e sei:ed.31 %omplementar& to the !oregoing provision is the eDclusionar& rule enshrined under .rticle III, Section #, paragraph 3, *hich olsters and solidi!ies the protection against unreasona le searches and sei:ures.33 )hus: .n& evidence o tained in violation o! this or the preceding section shall e inadmissi le !or an& purpose in an& proceeding. Eithout this rule, the right to privac& *ould e a !orm o! *ords, valueless and undeserving o! mention in a perpetual charter o! inestima le human li erties7 so too, *ithout this rule, the !reedom !rom state invasions o! privac& *ould e so ephemeral and so neatl& severed !rom its conceptual neDus *ith the !reedom !rom all rutish means o! coercing evidence as not to merit this %ourtBs high regard as a !reedom implicit in the concept o! ordered li ert&.3# )he !oregoing constitutional proscription, ho*ever, is not *ithout eDceptions. Search and sei:ure ma& e made *ithout a *arrant and the evidence o tained there!rom ma& e admissi le in the !ollo*ing instances: 112 search incident to a la*!ul arrest7 132 search o! a moving motor vehicle7 1#2 search in violation o! customs la*s7 102 sei:ure o! evidence in plain vie*7 182 *hen the accused himsel! *aives his right against unreasona le searches and sei:ures730 and 162 stop and !ris+ situations 1)err& search2.38 )he !irst eDception 1search incidental to a la*!ul arrest2 includes a valid *arrantless search and sei:ure pursuant to an e6uall& valid *arrantless arrest *hich must precede the

search. In this instance, the la* re6uires that there e !irst a la*!ul arrest e!ore a search can e made --- the process cannot e reversed.36 .s a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate i! e!!ected *ith .a valid *arrant o! arrest. )he ;ules o! %ourt, ho*ever, recogni:es permissi le *arrantless arrests. )hus, a peace o!!icer or a private person ma&, *ithout *arrant, arrest a person: 1a2 *hen, in his presence, the person to e arrested has committed, is actuall& committing, or is attempting to commit an o!!ense 1arrest in flagrante delicto27 1 2 *hen an o!!ense has 'ust een committed and he has pro a le cause to elieve ased on personal +no*ledge o! !acts or circumstances that the person to e arrested has committed it 1arrest e!!ected in hot pursuit27 and 1c2 *hen the person to e arrested is a prisoner *ho has escaped !rom a penal esta lishment or a place *here he is serving !inal 'udgment or is temporaril& con!ined *hile his case is pending, or has escaped *hile eing trans!erred !rom one con!inement to another 1 arrest o! escaped prisoners 2.3( In the case at ar, the court a quo anchored its 'udgment o! conviction on a !inding that the *arrantless arrest o! accused-appellants, and the su se6uent search conducted & the peace o!!icers, are valid ecause accused-appellants *ere caught in flagrante delicto in possession o! prohi ited drugs.3/ )his rings us to the issue o! *hether or not the *arrantless arrest, search and sei:ure in the present case !all *ithin the recogni:ed eDceptions to the *arrant re6uirement. .s applied to in flagrante delicto arrests, it is settled that 5relia le in!ormation5 alone, a sent an& overt act indicative o! a !elonious enterprise in the presence and *ithin the vie* o! the arresting o!!icers, are not su!!icient to constitute pro a le cause that *ould 'usti!& an in flagrante delicto arrest. )hus, in People v. Aminnudin,#1 it *as held that 5the accusedappellant *as not, at the moment o! his arrest, committing a crime nor *as it sho*n that he *as a out to do so or that he had 'ust done so. Ehat he *as doing *as descending the gangplan+ o! the MNEilcon 9 and there *as no out*ard indication that called !or his arrest. )o all appearances, he *as li+e an& o! the other passengers innocentl& disem ar+ing !rom the vessel. It *as onl& *hen the in!ormer pointed to him as the carrier o! the mari'uana that he suddenl& ecame suspect and so su 'ect to apprehension.5 %learl&, to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, t*o re6uisites must concur: 112 the person to e arrested must eDecute an overt act indicating that he has 'ust committed, is actuall& committing, or is attempting to commit a crime7 and 132 such overt act is done

in the presence or *ithin the vie* o! the arresting o!!icer.#/ In the case at ar, accused-appellants mani!ested no out*ard indication that *ould 'usti!& their arrest. In holding a ag on oard a trisikad, accused-appellants could not e said to e committing, attempting to commit or have committed a crime. It matters not that accused-appellant Molina responded 5=oss, i! possi le *e *ill settle this5 to the re6uest o! SPO1 Pamplona to open the ag. Such response *hich allegedl& rein!orced the 5suspicion5 o! the arresting o!!icers that accused-appellants *ere committing a crime, is an e6uivocal statement *hich standing alone *ill not constitute pro a le cause to e!!ect an in!lagrante delicto arrest. "ote that *ere it not !or SPO1 Marino Paguidopon 1*ho did not participate in the arrest ut merel& pointed accused-appellants to the arresting o!!icers2, accused-appellants could not e the su 'ect o! an& suspicion, reasona le or other*ise.