Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 133917 February 19, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
NSRIO MOLIN y MNM ! "#O#ONG" a$% GREGORIO MUL y
MLGUR ! "#O#O&", accused-appellants.
&NRES'SNTIGO, J.(
To sanction disrespect and disregard for the Constitution in the nae of protecting the
societ! fro la"brea#ers is to a#e the governent itself la"less and to subvert those
values upon "hich our ultiate freedo and libert! depend.
$
%or autoatic revie" is the &ecision
'
of the Regional Trial Court of &avao Cit!, Branch
$(, in Criinal Case No. )(,'*+-,*, finding accused-appellants Nasario Molina !
Manaat alias -Bobong- and .regorio Mula ! Malagura alias -Bobo!,- guilt! be!ond
reasonable doubt of violation of /ection 0,
)
of the &angerous &rugs Act of $,('
1Republic Act No. *+'23, as aended b! Republic Act No. (*2,,
+
and sentencing the
to suffer the supree penalt! of death.
The inforation against accused-appellants reads4
That on or about August 0, $,,*, in the Cit! of &avao, Philippines, and "ithin the
5urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the above-naed accused, in conspirac! "ith
each other, did then and there "illfull!, unla"full! and feloniousl! "as found in their
possession ,+*., grants of dried ari5uana "hich are prohibited.
C7NTRAR8 T7 9A:.
2
;pon arraignent on /epteber +, $,,*, accused-appellants pleaded not guilt! to the
accusation against the.
*
Trial ensued, "herein the prosecution presented Police
/uperintendent Eriel Mallorca, /P7$ 9eonardo 8. Paplona, <r., and /P7$ Marino /.
Paguidopon, <r. as "itnesses.
The antecedent facts are as follo"s4
/oetie in <une $,,*, /P7$ Marino Paguidopon, then a eber of the Philippine
National Police detailed at Precinct No. ), Matina, &avao Cit!, received an inforation
regarding the presence of an alleged ari5uana pusher in &avao Cit!.
(
The first tie he
cae to see the said ari5uana pusher in person "as during the first "ee# of <ul!
$,,*. /P7$ Paguidopon "as then "ith his inforer "hen a otorc!cle passed b!. 6is
inforer pointed to the otorc!cle driver, accused-appellant Mula, as the pusher. As to
accused-appellant Molina, /P7$ Paguidopon had no occasion to see hi before the
arrest. Moreover, the naes and addresses of the accused- appellants cae to the
#no"ledge of /P7$ Paguidopon onl! after the! "ere arrested.
0

At about (4)= in the orning of August 0, $,,*, /P7$ Paguidopon received an
inforation that the alleged pusher "ill be passing at N6A, Ma- a, &avao Cit! an! tie
that orning.
,
Conse>uentl!, at around 04== A.M. of the sae da!, he called for
assistance at the PNP, Precinct No. ), Matina, &avao Cit!, "hich iediatel!
dispatched the tea of /P7+ &ionisio Cloribel 1tea leader3, /P7' Paguidopon
1brother of /P7$ Marino Paguidopon3, and /P7$ Paplona, to proceed to the house
of /P7$ Marino Paguidopon "here the! "ould "ait for the alleged pusher to pass b!.
$=
At around ,4)= in the orning of August 0, $,,*, "hile the tea "ere positioned in the
house of /P7$ Paguidopon, a -trisi#ad- carr!ing the accused-appellants passed b!. At
that instance, /P7$ Paguidopon pointed to the accused-appellants as the pushers.
Thereupon, the tea boarded their, vehicle and overtoo# the -trisi#ad.-
$$
/P7$
Paguidopon "as left in his house, thirt! eters fro "here the accused-appellants
"ere accosted.
$'

The police officers then ordered the -trisi#ad- to stop. At that point, accused-appellant
Mula "ho "as holding a blac# bag handed the sae to accused-appellant Molina.
/ubse>uentl!, /P7$ Paplona introduced hiself as a police officer and as#ed
accused-appellant Molina to open the bag.
$)
Molina replied, "Boss, if possible we will
settle this."
$+
/P7$ Paplona insisted on opening the bag, "hich revealed dried
ari5uana leaves inside. Thereafter? accused-appellants Mula and Molina "ere
handcuffed b! the police officers.
$2

7n &eceber *, $,,*, accused-appellants, through counsel, 5ointl! filed a &eurrer to
Evidence, contending that the ari5uana allegedl! sei@ed fro the is inadissible as
evidence for having been obtained in violation of their constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and sei@ures.
$*
The deurrer "as denied b! the trial court.
$(
A
otion for reconsideration "as filed b! accused-appellants, but this "as li#e"ise
denied. Accused-appellants "aived presentation of evidence and opted to file a 5oint
eorandu.
7n April '2, $,,(, the trial court rendered the assailed decision,
$0
the decretal portion
of "hich reads4
:6ERE%7RE, finding the evidence of the prosecution alone "ithout an! evidence
fro both accused "ho "aived presentation of their o"n evidence through their
counsels, ore than sufficient to prove the guilt of both accused of the offense charged
be!ond reasonable doubt, pursuant to /ec. '=, sub. par. 2 of Republic Act (*2,,
accused NA/ARA7 M79ANA and .RE.7RA7 M;9A, are sentenced to suffer a
/;PREME PENA9T8 7% &EAT6 through lethal in5ection under Republic Act 0$(*, to
1
be effected and ipleented as therein provided for b! la", in relation to /ec. '+ of
Rep. Act (*2,.
The Branch Cler# of Court of this court, is ordered to iediatel! elevate the entire
records of this case "ith the Cler# of Court of the /upree Court, Manila, for the
autoatic revie" of their case b! the /upree Court and its appropriate action as the
case a! be.
/7 7R&ERE&.
$,
Pursuant to Article +( of the Revised penal Code and Rule $'', /ection $= of the
Rules of Court, the case "as elevated to this Court on autoatic revie". Accused-
appellants contend4
A.
T6AT T6E MARA<;ANA A/ AN A&MA//AB9E AN EBA&ENCE %7R 6ABAN. BEEN
/EACE& AN BA79ATA7N 7% APPE99ANT/D C7N/TAT;TA7NA9 RA.6T/ A.AAN/T
;NREA/7NAB9E, /EARC6E/ AN& /EAC;RE/?
AA.
T6AT A//;MAN. AT A/ A&MA//AB9E AN EBA&ENCE, T6E .7BERNMENT 6A/ N7T
7T6ER:A/E PR7BE& T6EAR .;A9T BE87N& REA/7NAB9E &7;BT? AN&
AAA.
T6AT, %ANA998, A//;MAN. T6EAR .;A9T 6A/ BEEN PR7BE& BE87N&
REA/7NAB9E &7;BT, T6E AMP7/AB9E PENA9T8 %7R BA79ATA7N 7% /EC. 0 7%
RA No. (*2, (sic), AN T6E AB/ENCE 7% AN8 A..RABATAN. CARC;M/TANCE, A/
9A%E AMPRA/7NMENT, N7T &EAT6.
'=

The /olicitor .eneral filed a Manifestation and M7$ion 1An 9ieu of Brief3, "herein he
pra!ed for the ac>uittal of both accused-appellants.
The fundaental la" of the land andates that searches and sei@ures be carried out
in a reasonable fashion, that is, b! virtue or on the strength of a search "arrant
predicated upon the eEistence of a probable cause. The pertinent provision of the
Constitution provides4
/EC. '. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and sei@ures of "hatever nature and for an!
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search "arrant or "arrant of arrest shall issue
eEcept upon probable cause to be deterined personall! b! the 5udge after
eEaination under oath or affiration of the coplainant and the "itnesses he a!
produce, and particularl! describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be sei@ed.
'$
Copleentar! to the foregoing provision is the eEclusionar! rule enshrined under
Article AAA, /ection ), paragraph ', "hich bolsters and solidifies the protection against
unreasonable searches and sei@ures.
''
Thus4
An! evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadissible for an! purpose in an! proceeding.
:ithout this rule, the right to privac! "ould be a for of "ords, valueless and
undeserving of ention in a perpetual charter of inestiable huan liberties? so too,
"ithout this rule, the freedo fro state invasions of privac! "ould be so epheeral
and so neatl! severed fro its conceptual neEus "ith the freedo fro all brutish
eans of coercing evidence as not to erit this CourtDs high regard as a freedo
iplicit in the concept of ordered libert!.
')

The foregoing constitutional proscription, ho"ever, is not "ithout eEceptions. /earch
and sei@ure a! be ade "ithout a "arrant and the evidence obtained therefro a!
be adissible in the follo"ing instances4 1$3 search incident to a la"ful arrest? 1'3
search of a oving otor vehicle? 1)3 search in violation of custos la"s? 1+3 sei@ure
of evidence in plain vie"? 123 "hen the accused hiself "aives his right against
unreasonable searches and sei@ures?
'+
and 1*3 stop and fris# situations 1Terr!
search3.
'2

The first eEception 1search incidental to a la"ful arrest3 includes a valid "arrantless
search and sei@ure pursuant to an e>uall! valid "arrantless arrest "hich ust precede
the search. An this instance, the la" re>uires that there be first a la"ful arrest before a
search can be ade --- the process cannot be reversed.
'*
As a rule, an arrest is
considered legitiate if effected "ith .a valid "arrant of arrest. The Rules of Court,
ho"ever, recogni@es perissible "arrantless arrests. Thus, a peace officer or a private
person a!, "ithout "arrant, arrest a person4 1a3 "hen, in his presence, the person to
be arrested has coitted, is actuall! coitting, or is attepting to coit an
offense 1arrest in flagrante delicto3? 1b3 "hen an offense has 5ust been coitted and
he has probable cause to believe based on personal #no"ledge of facts or
circustances that the person to be arrested has coitted it 1arrest effected in hot
pursuit3? and 1c3 "hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner "ho has escaped fro a
penal establishent or a place "here he is serving final 5udgent or is teporaril!
confined "hile his case is pending, or has escaped "hile being transferred fro one
confineent to another 1 arrest of escaped prisoners 3.
'(

An the case at bar, the court a quo anchored its 5udgent of conviction on a finding that
the "arrantless arrest of accused-appellants, and the subse>uent search conducted b!
the peace officers, are valid because accused-appellants "ere caught in flagrante
delicto in possession of prohibited drugs.
'0
This brings us to the issue of "hether or not
the "arrantless arrest, search and sei@ure in the present case fall "ithin the
recogni@ed eEceptions to the "arrant re>uireent.
2
An People v. Chua Ho San,
',
the Court held that in cases of in flagrante delicto arrests,
a peace officer or a private person a!, "ithout a "arrant, arrest a person "hen, in his
presence, the person to be arrested has coitted, is actuall! coitting, or is
attepting to coit an offense. The arresting officer, therefore, ust have personal
#no"ledge of such fact or, as recent case la" adverts to, personal #no"ledge of facts
or circustances convincingl! indicative or constitutive of probable cause. As
discussed in People v. oria,
)=
probable cause eans an actual belief or reasonable
grounds of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable "hen, in the absence
of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is
probabl! guilt! of coitting the offense, is based on actual facts, i.e., supported b!
circustances sufficientl! strong in theselves to create the probable cause of guilt of
the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore ust be founded on
probable cause, coupled "ith good faith on the part of the peace officers a#ing the
arrest.
As applied to in flagrante delicto arrests, it is settled that -reliable inforation- alone,
absent an! overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and "ithin the
vie" of the arresting officers, are not sufficient to constitute probable cause that "ould
5ustif! an in flagrante delicto arrest. Thus, in People v. !"innudin,
)$
it "as held that
-the accused-appellant "as not, at the oent of his arrest, coitting a crie nor
"as it sho"n that he "as about to do so or that he had 5ust done so. :hat he "as
doing "as descending the gangplan# of the #$ :ilcon , and there "as no out"ard
indication that called for his arrest. To all appearances, he "as li#e an! of the other
passengers innocentl! disebar#ing fro the vessel. At "as onl! "hen the inforer
pointed to hi as the carrier of the ari5uana that he suddenl! becae suspect and so
sub5ect to apprehension.-
9i#e"ise, in People v. #engote,
)'
the Court did not consider -e!es... darting fro side
to side 4.. F"hileG holding ... FoneDsG abdoen-, in a cro"ded street at $$4)= in the
orning, as overt acts and circustances sufficient to arouse suspicion and indicative
of probable cause. According to the Court, -FbG! no stretch of the iagination could it
have been inferred fro these acts that an offense had 5ust been coitted, or "as
actuall! being coitted or "as at least being attepted in Fthe arresting officersDG
presence.- /o also, in People v. %ncinada,
))
the Court ruled that no probable cause is
gleanable fro the act of riding a "otorela "hile holding t"o plastic bab!
chairs.&'wphi&.n(t
Then, too, in #alacat v. Court of !ppeals,
)+
the trial court concluded that petitioner "as
attepting to coit a crie as he "as -Hstanding at the coer of Pla@a Miranda and
Iue@on BoulevardD "ith his e!es Doving ver! fastD and Dloo#ing at ever! person that
coe 1sic3 nearer 1sic3 to the.D-
)2
An declaring the "arrantless arrest therein illegal, the
Court said4
6ere, there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto ... arrest preceding the search
in light of the lac# of personal #no"ledge on the part of B u, the arresting officer, or an
overt ph!sical act, on the part of petitioner, indicating that a crie had 5ust been
coitted, "as being coitted or "as going to be coitted.
)*

At "ent on to state that J
/econd, there "as nothing in petitionerDs behavior or conduct "hich could have
reasonabl! elicited even ere suspicion other than that his e!es "ere -oving ver!
fast- - an observation "hich leaves us incredulous since 8u and his teaates "ere
no"here near petitioner and it "as alread! *4)= p.., thus presuabl! dus#. Petitioner
and his copanions "ere erel! standing at the coer and "ere not creating an!
cootion or trouble...
Third, there "as at all no ground, probable or other"ise, to believe that petitioner "as
ared "ith a deadl! "eapon. None "as visible to 8u, for as he aditted, the alleged
grenade "as -discovered- -inside the front "aistline- of petitioner, and fro all
indications as to the distance bet"een 8u and petitioner, an! telltale bulge, assuing
that petitioner "as indeed hiding a grenade, could not have been visible to 8u.
)(
Clearl!, to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, t"o re>uisites ust concur4 1$3
the person to be arrested ust eEecute an overt act indicating that he has 5ust
coitted, is actuall! coitting, or is attepting to coit a crie? and 1'3 such
overt act is done in the presence or "ithin the vie" of the arresting officer.
)0

An the case at bar, accused-appellants anifested no out"ard indication that "ould
5ustif! their arrest. An holding a bag on board a trisi)ad, accused-appellants could not
be said to be coitting, attepting to coit or have coitted a crie. At atters
not that accused-appellant Molina responded -Boss, if possible "e "ill settle this- to
the re>uest of /P7$ Paplona to open the bag. /uch response "hich allegedl!
reinforced the -suspicion- of the arresting officers that accused-appellants "ere
coitting a crie, is an e>uivocal stateent "hich standing alone "ill not constitute
probable cause to effect an inflagrante delicto arrest. Note that "ere it not for /P7$
Marino Paguidopon 1"ho did not participate in the arrest but erel! pointed accused-
appellants to the arresting officers3, accused-appellants could not be the sub5ect of an!
suspicion, reasonable or other"ise.
:hile /P7$ Paguidopon claied that he and his inforer conducted a surveillance of
accused-appellant Mula, /P7$ Paguidopon, ho"ever, aditted that he onl! learned
MulaDs nae and address after the arrest. :hat is ore, it is doubtful if /P7$
Paguidopon indeed recogni@ed accused-appellant Mula. At is "orth! to note that,
before the arrest, he "as able to see Mula in person onl! once, pinpointed to hi b!
his inforer "hile the! "ere on the side of the road. These circustances could not
have afforded /P7$ Paguidopon a closer loo# at accused-appellant Mula, considering
that the latter "as then driving a otorc!cle "hen, /P7$ Paguidopon caught a
glipse of hi. :ith respect to accused-appellant Molina, /P7$ Paguidopon aditted
that he had never seen hi before the arrest.
This belies the clai of /P7$ Paplona that he #ne" the nae of accused-appellants
even before the arrest, to "it J
3
-I- :hen !ou said that certain Mula handed a blac# bag to another person and
ho" did !ou #no" that it "as Mula "ho handed the blac# bag to another personK
A- Because A have alread! inforation fro Paguidopon, regarding Mula and
Molina, "hen the! pass b! through the street near the residence of Paguidopon. 6e
told that the one "ho is big one that is .regorio Mula and the thin one is Na@ario
Molina-
),

The aforecited testion! of /P7$ Paplona, therefore, is entirel! baseless /P7$
Paplona could not have learned the nae of accused-appellants fro /P7$
Paguipodon because Paguipodon hiself, "ho allegedl! conducted the surveillance,
"as not even a"are of accused-appellantsD nae and address prior to the arrest.
Evidentl!, /P7$ Paguidopon, "ho acted as inforer of the arresting officers, ore so
the arresting officers theselves, could not have been certain of accused-appellantsD
identit!, and "ere, fro all indications, erel! fishing for evidence at the tie of the
arrest.
Copared to People v. %ncinada, the arresting officer in the said case #ne" appellant
Encinada even before the arrest because of the latterDs illegal gabling activities, thus,
lending at least a seblance of validit! on the arrest effected b! the peace officers.
Nevertheless, the Court declared in said case that the "arrantless arrest and the
conse>uent search "ere illegal, holding that -FtGhe prosecutionDs evidence did not sho"
an! suspicious behavior "hen the appellant disebar#ed fro the ship or "hile he
rode the "otorela. No act or fact deonstrating a felonious enterprise could be
ascribed to appellant under such bare circustances.-
+=
Moreover, it could not be said that accused-appellants "aived their right against
unreasonable searches and sei@ure. Aplied ac>uiescence to the search, if there "as
an!, could not have been ore than ere passive conforit! given under intiidating
or coercive circustances and is thus considered no consent at all "ithin the purvie"
of the constitutional guarantee.
+$
:ithal, the Court holds that the arrest of accused-appellants does not fall under the
eEceptions allo"ed b! the rules. 6ence, the search conducted on their person "as
li#e"ise illegal. Conse>uentl!, the ari5uana sei@ed b! the peace officers could not be
aditted as evidence against accused-appellants, and the Court is thus, left "ith no
choice but to find in favor of accused-appellants.
:hile the Court strongl! supports the capaign of the governent against drug
addiction and coends the efforts of our la"-enforceent officers to"ards this drive,
all efforts for the achieveent of a drug-free societ! ust not encroach on the
fundaental rights and liberties of individuals as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, "hich
protection eEtends even to the basest of criinals.
)HEREFORE, the &ecision of the Regional Trial Court of &avao Cit!, Branch $(, in
Criinal Case No. )(, '*+-,*, is RE*ERSE+ and SET SI+E. %or lac# of evidence to
establish their guilt be!ond reasonable doubt, accused-appellants Nasario Molina !
Manaat alias -Bobong- and .regorio Mula ! Malagura alias -Bobo!-, are
C,UITTE+ and ordered RELESE+ fro confineent unless the! are validl!
detained for other offenses. No costs.
SO OR+ERE+.
4