VALDEZ V. PEOPLE
Facts:
Arsenio Valdez was found guilty for
violating Sec. 11 of RA 9165.
In this appeal, petitioner prays for his acquittal and asserts
that his guilt of the crime charged had not been proven beyond reasonable
doubt. He argues, albeit for the first time on appeal, that the warrantless
arrest effected against him by the barangay tanod was
unlawful and that the warrantless search of his bag that followed was likewise
contrary to law.
ISSUE: Whether the warrantless arrest was validly made?
HELD:
NO. When
petitioner was arrested without a warrant, he was neither caught in flagrante
delicto committing a crime nor was the arrest effected in hot pursuit.
Verily, it cannot therefore be reasonably argued that the warrantless search
conducted on petitioner was incidental to a lawful arrest.
Section
5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides the only occasions on
which a person may be arrested without a warrant, to wit:
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when
lawful.A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
(a) When,
in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When
an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
(c) When
the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
x x x
It is obvious that based on the testimonies of the arresting
barangay tanod, not one of these circumstances was obtaining at the
time petitioner was arrested. By their own admission, petitioner was not
committing an offense at the time he alighted from the bus, nor did he appear
to be then committing an offense.The tanoddid not have probable cause either to
justify petitioners warrantless arrest.
For the exception in Section 5(a), Rule 113 to operate, this Court
has ruled that two (2) elements must be present: (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. Here, petitioners act of looking around after getting off
the bus was but natural as he was finding his way to his destination. That he
purportedly attempted to run away as the tanod approached him
is irrelevant and cannot by itself be construed as adequate to charge the tanod with
personal knowledge that petitioner had just engaged in, was actually engaging
in or was attempting to engage in criminal activity. More importantly,
petitioner testified that he did not run away but in fact spoke with
the barangay tanod when they approached him.
Indeed, the supposed acts of petitioner, even assuming that they
appeared dubious, cannot be viewed as sufficient to incite suspicion of
criminal activity enough to validate his warrantless arrest. If at all, the search most permissible for the tanod to
conduct under the prevailing backdrop of the case was a stop-and-frisk to allay
any suspicion they have been harboring based on petitioners behavior. However,
a stop-and-frisk situation, following Terry v. Ohio,must precede a warrantless arrest, be limited to the persons outer
clothing, and should be grounded upon a genuine reason, in light of the police
officers experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the
person detained has weapons concealed about him.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento