PEOPLE VS MOLINA

19 February 2001 | Ponente: Ynares-Santiago

Overview: SPO1 Paguidopon received a tip about drug pushers. He previously caugh
t a glimpse of one of them, Mula, so he was able to point to him and his compani
on, Molina, to arresting officers when they were aboard a trisikad. Upon accosti
ng them, the police were able to find marijuana in a bag carried by Molina, lead
ing to their arrest. The court however held that they were illegally arrested be
cause their case don t fall under the exception of an in flagrante delicto arrest,
there being no outward indication that could justify their arrest.
Statement of the Case: This is for review of the decision of the RTC finding Nas
ario Molina alias "Bobong" and Gregorio Mula alias "Boboy" guilty of violation o
f Sec. 8 of RA 6245, or the Dangerous Drugs Act, by possessing 946.9 grants of d
ried marijuana.-Molina and Mula pleaded guilty upon arraignment.
Statement of Facts: On June 1996, SPO1 Marino Paguidopon received information ab
out a marijuana pusher in Davao. Paguidopon first saw the pusher in person on Ju
ly of the same year, when his informer identified Mula as the driver of a motorc
ycle who just passed by them. Molina, on the other hand, was never identified pr
ior arrest. In the morning of August 8, 1996, Paguidopon received information th
at the drug pushers will pass by at NHA, Ma-a, Davao City that morning, so he ca
lled for assistance from the PNP. A team composed of SPO4 Cloribel, SPO2 Paguido
pon (brother of Marino), and SPO1 Pamplona were dispatched to proceed to Marino'
s house where they'll wait for the drug pushers will pass by. Two hours later, a
"trisikad" identified by Paguidopon as carrying Molina and Mula passed by. So,
the team boarded their vehicle, overtook the trisikad and accosted the two.-At t
hat point, Mula was holding a black bag. He handed the same to Molina. Pamplona,
introducing himself as a police officer, asked Molina to open the bag, to which
Molina replied "Boss, if possible, we will settle this."-Pamplona insisted on o
pening the bag, which revealed dried marijuana leaves inside. Thereafter, Mula a
nd Molina were handcuffed. Mula and Molina filed a Demurrer to Evidence, saying
that the marijuna was illegally seized from them, therefore it is inadmissible.
The trial court denied this. The two waived presentation of evidence, and opted
to file a joint memorandum. Later, the trial court still found them guilty, and
sentenced them to suffer the death penalty. Pursuant to Art. 47 of the RPC and R
ule 122, Sec. 10 of the ROC, the case is elevated to the SC on automatic review.
The SolGen moved for the acquittal of the two.
Issue and Held: Was the arrest of Mula and Molina fall under the exception of in
flagrante delicto in warrantless arrests?
NO. Applicable Laws: Article III, Sec. 2Article III, Sec. 3
Rationale: The law mandates that searches be carried out with a search warrant u
pon the existence of probable cause. Likewise, the law protects against unreason
able searches and seizures and holds evidence taken from such incidents as inadm
issible as evidence. There are exceptions to this, the first being seizure condu
cted incidental to a lawful arrest
For this, there should be a lawful arrest first, before a search can be made. It
doesn't work the other way around. Likewise, as a rule, an arrest is legitimate
if it's with a valid warrant of arrest. However, a police officer may conduct w
arrantless arrests:
(a)In flagrante delicto - When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has c
ommitted, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense
(b) Arrest effected in hot pursuit - - when an offense has just been committed a
nd he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circ
umstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.
(c) Arrest of escaped prisoners - when the person to be arrested is a prisoner w
ho has escaped from penal establishment or a place where he is serving final jud
gment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
 being transferred from one confinement to another. In this case, the trial cour
t found that the warrantless arrest and seizure were valid apparently because th
ey were caught in flagrante delicto in possession of the prohibited drugs. But t
he question is: does the present case aptly fall within the exceptions to the wa
rrant requirement?
In flagrante delicto arrests, it is settled that "reliable information" alone is
not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify in flagrante del
icto arrests
O People vs Chua Ho San: The arresting officer must have personal knowledge that
the person he is arresting has committed, is committing or is about to commit t
he offense.
O People vs Aminudin: The accused was just disembarking the vessel. He only beca
me suspect when the informer pointed him to the officials.