PEOPLE V. LAGUIO
Facts:
Petitioner, People of the Philippines
filed this petition for review to nullify and set aside the resolution of RTC
in criminal case, granting private respondent, Lawrence Wang Demurrer to
Evidence and aquitting him of 3 charges filed against him.
The trial
court resolved the case on the basis of its findings that the arrest
preceded the search, and finding no basis to rule in favor of a lawful arrest,
it ruled that the incidental search is likewise unlawful. Any and all
pieces of evidence acquired as a consequence thereof are inadmissible in
evidence. Thus, the trial court dismissed the case for lack of evidence.
Contrary
to its position at the trial court, the People, however, now posits that
inasmuch as it has been shown in the present case that the seizure without
warrant of the regulated drugs and unlicensed firearms in the accused
possession had been validly made upon probable cause and under exigent
circumstances, then the warrantless arrest of the accused must necessarily have
to be regarded as having been made on the occasion of the commission of the
crime in flagrante delicto, and therefore constitutionally and
statutorily permissible and lawful. In
effect, the People now contends that the warrantless search preceded
the warrantless arrest. Since the case falls under an exception to the
general rule requiring search warrant prior to a valid search and seizure, the
police officers were justified in requiring the private respondent to open his
BMW cars trunk to see if he was carrying illegal drugs.
Issue: whether there was lawful arrest, search and
seizure by the police operatives in this case despite the absence of a warrant
of arrest and/or a search warrant.
Held:
NO. The facts
and circumstances surrounding the present case did not manifest any suspicious
behavior on the part of private respondent Lawrence Wang that would reasonably
invite the attention of the police. He was merely walking from the Maria
Orosa Apartment and was about to enter the parked BMW car when the
police operatives arrested him, frisked and searched his person and commanded
him to open the compartment of the car, which was later on found to be owned by
his friend, David Lee. He was not committing any visible offense then.
Therefore, there can be no valid warrantless arrest in flagrante
delicto under paragraph (a) of Section 5. It is settled that
reliable information alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious
enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, is
not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in
flagrante delicto arrest.
Neither
may the warrantless arrest be justified under paragraph (b) of Section 5. What
is clearly established from the testimonies of the arresting officers is that
Wang was arrested mainly on the information that he was the employer of
Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio who were previously arrested and charged for
illegal transport of shabu. Teck and Junio did not even categorically
identify Wang to be their source of the shabu they were caught
with in flagrante delicto. Upon the duos declaration that there
will be a delivery of shabu on the early morning of the
following day, May 17, which is only a few hours thereafter, and that Wang may
be found in Maria Orosa Apartment along Maria Orosa Street,
the arresting officers conducted surveillance operation in front of said
apartment, hoping to find a person which will match the description of one
Lawrence Wang, the employer of Teck and Junio. These circumstances do not
sufficiently establish the existence of probable cause based on personal
knowledge as required in paragraph (b) of Section 5.
And
doubtless, the warrantless arrest does not fall under paragraph (c) of Section
5.
The
inevitable conclusion, as correctly made by the trial court, is that the
warrantless arrest was illegal. Ipso jure, the warrantless
search incidental to the illegal arrest is likewise unlawful.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento