People vs. Mentoy,
G.R. No. 223140, September
04, 2019,
First Division [Bersamin,
C.J.]
Facts:
On
May 31, 2008, at about 8 a.m., PSI Socrates briefed the operation team (team).
At about 4:30 p.m., the informant relayed to the team that accused-appellant
will be boarding a Charing 19 shuttle van (van) with plate number VRA 698.
Thus, the team proceeded to the National Highway, Barangay Malatgao, Nan-a,
Palawan. At a distance of one (1) to two (2) meters, PO1 Rosales, while on
board his motorcycle, saw accused-appellant board the van. PO1 Rosales flagged
down the van as it approached them. The team introduced themselves as police
officers. They declared that they were conducting a checkpoint because of
information about persons transporting illegal drugs. PO1 Rosales told the
driver that they will check the van passengers. The driver then opened the van's
side door. PO1 Rosales asked the van passengers who among them was Rose.
Accused-appellant replied, "Aka po" (I am). PO1 Rosales asked
accused-appellant where her baggage was. Accused-appellant apprehensively
requested the driver to hand her the pink bag placed at the rear portion of the
van. SPO2 Felizarte and PO1 Rosales, however, noticed that accused-appellant
transferred a block-shaped bundle, wrapped in yellow cellophane and brown tape,
from the pink bag to a black one. SPO2 Felizarte and PO1 Rosales suspected this
bundle to contain marijuana leaves. Accused-appellant then placed the black bag
on a vacant seat beside her. SPO2 Felizarte also noticed that accused-appellant
panicked and tried to get down from the van, but he and PO1 Rosales restrained her.
Afterwards, PO1 Rosales called Barangay Captain Ernesto Maiguez (Brgy. Captain
Maiguez) to proceed to the area.
When
Brgy. Captain Maiguez arrived, SPO2 Felizarte and PO1 Rosales asked him if he
knew accused-appellant. Brgy. Captain Maiguez said he knew accused-appellant as
a rice seller who resided in Barangay Malatgao where he was chairman. The
police officers asked Brgy. Captain Maiguez to pick up the black bag, which
accused-appellant held beside her. Brgy. Captain Maiguez got (the) said bag and
placed it by the road. SPO2 Felizarte requested him to open it. Brgy. Captain
Maiguez opened said bag in the presence of accused-appellant and the other van
passengers. PO1 Rosales took photographs while said bag was being opened. The
black bag contained, inter alia: (a) one (1) L-shaped bundle wrapped in yellow
cellophane and brown tape; (b) one (1) block-shaped bundle wrapped in
newspaper; and (c) one (1) sachet (covered with tissue paper), all suspected to
contain marijuana leaves. The police officers smelled the bundles and sachet
and confirmed that these contained marijuana leaves. The police officers
returned the items inside the black bag. They arrested and informed
accused-appellant that she violated Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 and apprised
the latter of her constitutional rights. Since accused-appellant lived near the
crime scene, the police officers brought her and the seized items immediately
to the police station to avoid any untoward incident.
PO1
Rosales carried the black bag from the crime scene to the police station.
Thereat, PO1 Rosales prepared an inventory of the seized items in the presence
of a media representative and Brgy. Captain Maiguez. PO1 Rosales also marked
the L-shaped bundle as "ADR-1", blocked-shaped bundle as
"ADR-2", and sachet as "ADR-3", respectively, in the
presence of accused-appellant. PO1 Rosales brought the bundles and sachet to
the Palawan Crime Laboratory (crime laboratory) where Forensic Chemist and
Police Chief Inspector Mary Jane Cordero (PCI Cordero) examined the seized
items. She found the contents of the bundles and sachet positive for marijuana
and prepared Chemistry Report No. D-005-08 stating her findings.
RTC
convicted the accused-appellant as charged. CA rendered the assailed decision affirming
the conviction of the accused-appellant. It opined that a search could precede
an arrest if the police officers had probable cause to effect the arrest; that
the warrantless search conducted on the personal effects of the
accused-appellant had been an incident of her lawful arrest; and that the
Prosecution had adequately established the crucial links in the chain of
custody.
Issue:
Whether
the marijuana leaves supposedly taken from her bag were inadmissible in
evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule.
Held:
No;
a lawful arrest must
precede a warrantless search conducted upon the personal effects of an
individual. The process cannot be reversed. Hence, the search must rest on
probable cause existing independently of the arrest.
Generally,
there can be no valid arrest, search and seizure without a warrant issued by a
competent judicial authority. The warrant, to be issued by a judge, must rest
upon probable cause - the existence of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed a crime, or is about to do so; or the person whose
property is to be searched has used the same to commit crime, and its issuance
must not be based on speculation, or surmise, or conjecture,,,, or hearsay. The
right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures is so sacred that
no less than Section 2, Article III of the Constitution declares the right to
be inviolable, and for that reason expressly prohibits the issuance of any
search warrant or warrant of arrest except upon probable cause to be personally
determined by a judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
To
enforce such inviolable right, Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitutions
enunciates the exclusionary rule by unqualifiedly declaring that "[a]ny
evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding." The exclusionary rule is
intended to deter the violation of the right to be protected from unreasonable
searches and arrest.
We
are mindful that the guarantee against warrantless arrests, and warrantless
searches and seizures admit of some exceptions. One such exception relates to
arrests, searches and seizures made at a police checkpoint. Indeed, routine
inspections made at checkpoints have been regarded as permissible and valid, if
the inspections are limited to the following situations: (a) where the officer merely
draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle parked on the public fair grounds;
(b) simply looks inside a vehicle; (c) flashes a light into the vehicle without
opening its doors; (d) where the occupants of the vehicle are not subjected to
a physical or body search; (e) where the inspection of the vehicle is limited
to a visual search or visual inspection; and (f) where the routine check is
conducted in a fixed area.
Warrantless search of the accused-appellant's personal
belongings was not based on probable cause. For sure, the transfer made by the
accused-appellant of the block shaped bundle from one bag to another should
not be cited to justify the search if the search had earlier commenced at the
moment PO1 Rosales required her to produce her baggage. Neither should the
officers rely on the still-unverified tip from the unidentified informant,
without more, as basis to initiate the search of the personal effects. The
officers were themselves well aware that the tip, being actually double hearsay
as to them, called for independent verification as its substance and
reliability, and removed the foundation for them to rely on it even under the
circumstances then obtaining. In short, the tip, in the absence of other circumstances that would
confirm their suspicion coming to the knowledge of the searching or arresting
officer, was not yet actionable for purposes of effecting an arrest or
conducting a search.
The
general rule is that an arrest or search and seizure should be effected upon a
judicial warrant. A lawful warrantless arrest may be effected by a peace
officer or private person but only when any of the exceptions listed in Section
5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court to the rule requiring a warrant of arrest to
be issued is applicable.
On
its part, the CA upheld the warrantless arrest on the basis of the
accused-appellant having been. caught in flagrante delicto, the situation
covered by Section 5(a), supra. An arrest made in flagrante delicto means that
the arrestee is caught in the very act of committing the crime, and the phrase
necessarily implies that the positive identification of the culprit has already
been done by an eyewitness or eyewitnesses. Such identification constitutes
direct evidence of culpability because it "proves the fact in dispute
without the aid of any inference or presumption." But we find otherwise, because there was no direct
evidence on the identity of the culprit as of the time of the search simply
because the officers still had to know who Rose was from among the passengers.
Also,
the officers did not immediately effect the arrest of the accused appellant
once she had identified herself as Rose, and the only explanation for this was
that they still had to check if her bag had really contained marijuana. As
earlier noted, they claimed seeing her transferring from one bag to another the
block-shaped bundle, wrapped in yellow cellophane and brown tape, but their
vaunted suspicion of the contents being marijuana was SPO2 Felizarte's
afterthought justification considering that the contents of the bundle were not
then visible on plain sight. It is noteworthy in
this regard that the contents would be revealed as marijuana only after the
barangay captain had opened the bag.
The arrest of the accused-appellant
did not justify the search of the personal belongings because the arrest did
not precede the search. Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, clearly
states that "[a] person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a search warrant." Accordingly, there
should first be a lawful arrest before the warrantless search can be made; the
process cannot be reversed. As
such, the search made against the accused-appellant would be valid only if
sufficient probable cause to support it existed independently of the arrest.
What
the foregoing disquisition indicates is that the arresting officers plainly
ignored the constitutional and statutory limitations prescribed for a valid
search at a checkpoint. They effected the warrantless search of the personal
effects of the accused-appellant without sufficient probable cause, and on that
basis arrested her.
No comments:
Post a Comment