ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No 170180
November 23, 2007
Facts:
Petitioner Arsenio Valdez was found guilty by the lower courts for the violation of Section 11 of RA 9165 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs) after dried marijuana leaves were found in his possession by three barangay tanods who made a search on him
Petitioner denied ownership and purported that he had just alighted from the bus when one of the barangay tanods approached him and requested to see the contents of his bags. The petitioner was then brought by the three tanods to the house of Brgy. Captain Mercado, who again ordered to have the bag opened. During which, the dried marijuana leaves were found.
Petitioner prays for his acquittal questioning, although for the first time on appeal, that his warrantless arrest was effected unlawfully and the warrantless search that followed was likewise contrary to law.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner should be acquitted for the lack of a warrant supporting the arrest and the search.
Held:
The Court ruled for the reversal of the decision by the lower courts. The accused was acquitted by reasonable doubt.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedures provides for the only occasions permitting a warrantless arrest: (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.
The Court held that none of the circumstances was attendant at the time of the arrest.
The Court also posed 2 exceptions to the said rule, to wit: (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.
None of the petitioner’s actuations (i.e. his looking around and alleged fleeing upon approach of the tanods) is adequate to incite suspicion of criminal activity to validate the warrantless arrest.
However, the Court’s decision was not only hinged on this premise but also on the fact that the lower courts failed to establish the veracity of the seized items by virtue of the chain of custody rule and in view of the contrasting testimonies by the prosecution witnesses.
Failure of the lower courts to satisfy the test of moral certainty, the accused was thus acquitted.
The Court added that the petitioner’s lack of objection to the search and seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary submission to the warrantless search and seizure.
Over a Cup of Coffee and a Pint of Insanity 