CRIMPRO SEARCHES, RULE 126

Title GR Nos. 205926

COMERCIANTE v. PEOPLE Date: 22 Jul 2015
Ponente: Perlas-Bernade, J.
Alvin Comerciante People of the Philippines
Review on Certiorari of the decision of the CA affirming the judgment of conviction by the RTC.
FACTS
Case timeline:
1. Petitioner was charged with violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165 for possession of
dangerous drugs.
2. Petitioner and Dasilla were arrested by RADAN and CALAG, police officers. The police
officers were aboard their motorcycle while cruising the road then they allegedly saw two
men standing and showing improper and unpleasant movements.
3. They introduced themselves as police officers and arrested the two and at the same time
confiscated the two plastic sachets which turned out to be shabu.
4. Dasilla filed a demurrer to evidence. Court granted it. Comerciantes was found guilty.
5. The People argues that the search made was incidental to a valid warrantless arrest AND a
valid Stop and Frisk Search.

ISSUE/S
I. WON there was a valid search incidental to a lawful arrest
II. WON there was a valid Search and Frisk
RATIO
NO. There is no lawful warrantless arrest. Hence no valid search incidental to a
lawful arrest. For a warrantless arrest to be lawful the officers personal knowledge of the
fact of the commission of an offense is absolutely required. In this case the Court finds it
highly implausible that CALAG would be able to identify with reasonable accuracy a
miniscule amount of crystalline substance.

NO. There is also no valid Search and Frisk.

Stop and Frisk Searches are necessary for law enforcement. That is, law enforces should
be given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of an offense. The balance lies in the
concept of suspiciousness present where the police officer finds himself or herself in. This
is based on the experience of the police officer.

For warrantless searches, probable cause was defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to
believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense which he is charged. The
circumstances in this case are not enough to create a reasonable inference of the criminal
activity.
RULING
DECISION PROMULGATED IS AFFIRMED.
CABRITO