REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

BRANCH 11
QUEZON CITY, MANILA
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff,
-versusFERDINAND MARCELINO, Accused.

Conspiring To
Possessing Illegal

CRIMINAL CASE NO. _______

FOR:
Manufacturing,
Manufacture, And
Drugs.
DECISION

At bar is a criminal case charging Lt. Col. Ferdinand Marcelino for violating
Sections 8 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On January 16, 2016, Marcelino was charged with manufacturing,
conspiring to manufacture and possessing illegal drugs reads in an
information which reads:
That on or about the 21st day of January, 2016, in Sta. Cruz, Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession and custody and control 60 KILOS
of methamphetamine hydrochloride in four large trays in the
crystallization phase of the making of the illegal drug locally called
shabu", which is a dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever,
and 3 kilos of finished shabu, chemicals and equipment for making
the
illegal
drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On February 2016, Marcelino filed a motion for reinvestigation and was
later arraigned and pleaded not guilty.

Consequently pre-trial follows:

On March 15, 2016, pre-trial was conducted pursuant to the provisions of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended by the 1988 Rules on
Criminal Procedure. The prosecution was represented by the Assistant City
Prosecutor, John Kelly Cainday., Private Prosecutors, Atty. Karyll Ann Mitra
and Atty. Joana Mae Taclas and the accused Ferdinand Marcelino, assisted
by his counsel-de-parte, Atty. Val Charles Ringor appeared.
The following proposals for admission were introduced by the prosecution:
1. That Ferdinand Marcelino who is here today is the same Ferdinand
Marcelino who is the accused in this case, which was admitted by the
defense;
2. That the Honorable Court has the jurisdiction to try this case over the
person of the accused, which was admitted by the defense;
The issue proposed by the prosecution is:
1. Whether or not Ferdinand Marcelino is part of the conspiracy in
manufacturing and possessing illegal drugs.
The issue proposed by the defense is:
1. Whether or not the arrest of the accused, Ferdinand Marcelino, was
illegal.
Evidence of the prosecution tended to show that Marcelino and Yan Yi Shou,
a Chinese citizen who served as interpreter for the PDEA in 2005, entered an
apartment at Celadon Residences on Felix Huertas and Batangas Streets in
Sta. Cruz. Hardly had they entered the apartment than PDEA agents and
policemen pounced on them. The agents of PDEA were waiting for people to
arrive and they were surprised to see Marcelino there and found out that they
had a key. After they entered, PDEA implemented the search warrant. The
search showed that the apartment was a clandestine drug laboratory.
Marcelino and Yan were then temporarily detained at the PNP-AIDG office.
The prosecution believes that this is "a clear case of in flagrante delicto
warrantless arrest" as provided under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure. They contended that the accused "exhibited an
overt act or strange conduct that would reasonably arouse suspicion".
The prosecution had adequately shown the continuous and unbroken chain
of custody of the seized item, from the time it was confiscated from the
clandestine drug laboratory, marked at the police station, turned over to PO2
Areglado and delivered to the crime laboratory, where it was received by PSI

Torres, the forensic chemist, up to the time it was presented in court for
proper identification.
For the warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to operate, two
elements 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; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence
or within the view of the arresting officer.1 On the other hand, paragraph (b)
of Section 5 requires for its application that at the time of the arrest, an
offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the appellant had committed it.2
In both instances, the officers personal knowledge of the fact of the
commission of an offense is absolutely required. Under paragraph (a), the
officer himself witnesses the crime while under paragraph (b), he knows for
a fact that a crime has just been committed.
The prosecution said that this was a clear case of an "in flagrante delicto
warrantless arrest" under paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5, Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, as above-quoted.
This Court disagrees.
It has not been established that the rigorous conditions set forth in paragraph
(b) of Section 5, Rule 113 have been complied with, i.e., that an offense had
in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the accused had committed it.
Seeing Marcelino in the clandestine drug laboratory will not suffice to
satisfy the exacting requirements provided under Section 5, 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.
The right of a person to be secure against any unreasonable seizure of his
body and any deprivation of his liberty is a most basic and fundamental one.
The statute or rule which allows exceptions to the requirement of warrants of
arrest is strictly construed. Any exception must clearly fall within the
situations when securing a warrant would be absurd or is manifestly
unnecessary as provided by the Rule. We cannot liberally construe the rule
on arrests without warrant or extend its application beyond the cases
specifically provided by law. To do so would infringe upon personal liberty
and set back a basic right so often violated and so deserving of full
protection.
Consequently, there being no lawful warrantless arrest, the shabu

purportedly seized from the laboratory is rendered inadmissible in evidence

for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. As the confiscated shabu
is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, appellant must be acquitted
and exonerated from all criminal liability.
Wherefore, the accused Ferdinand Marcelino is hereby ACQUITTED on
reasonable doubt of the offense charged and ordered immediately released
from detention, unless his continued confinement is warranted by some
other cause or ground.
NO COST. March 30, 2016, Manila
SO ORDERED
SIGNED:
Judge Angela Marie A. Almalbis
Footnotes:
1

Valdez v. People, G.R. No. 170180, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 611, 624, citing
People v. Tudtud, 458 Phil. 752, 775 (2003).
2

People v. Cuizon, G.R. No. 109287, April 18, 1996, 256 SCRA 325, 341.