137) Valdez Vs CA

137.
Valdez vs Court of Appeals Defenses version:

[G.R. No. 170180. November, 23 2007]
Topic: Sec. 5 (a) (In flagrante delicto): Penal knowledge 1. As the sole witness, petitioner testified that at around 8:30
p.m. on 17 March 2003, he arrived in Aringay from his place in
ISSUE: Whether or not the search which yielded the alleged Currooy, Santol, La Union. After alighting from the bus,
contraband was lawful [NO] petitioner claimed that he went to the house of a friend to
drink water and then proceeded to walk to his brothers house.
FACTS: As he was walking, prosecution witness Ordoo, a cousin of his
On 26 June 2003, petitioner was charged with violation of Section brothers wife, allegedly approached him and asked where he
11, par. 2(2) of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal possession of marijuana). He was going. Petitioner replied that he was going to his brothers
was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the RTC and was house. Ordoo then purportedly requested to see the contents
affirmed by the CA. of his bag and appellant acceded. It was at this point that
Bautista and Aratas joined them. After inspecting all the
Prosecutions version: contents of his bag, petitioner testified that he was restrained
1. The prosecution presented Rogelio Bautista, Nestor Aratas, by the tanod and taken to the house of Mercado. It was Aratas
and Eduardo Ordoo as the 3 barangay tanods who arrested who carried the bag until they reached their destination.
the petitioner. 2. Petitioner maintained that at Mercados house, his bag was
2. Bautista testified that at around 8:00 to 8:30 p.m. of March opened by the tanod and Mercado himself. They took out an
17, 2003, he was conducting the routine patrol along the item wrapped in newspaper, which later turned out to be
National Highway in Barangay San Benito Norte, Aringay, La marijuana leaves. Petitioner denied ownership thereof. He
Union together with Aratas and Ordoo when they noticed claimed to have been threatened with imprisonment by his
petitioner, lugging a bag, alight from a minibus. The tanods arrestors if he did not give the prohibited drugs to someone
observed that petitioner, who appeared suspicious to them, from the east in order for them to apprehend such person. As
seemed to be looking for something. They thus approached petitioner declined, he was brought to the police station and
him but the latter purportedly attempted to run away. They charged with the instant offense. Although petitioner divulged
chased him, put him under arrest and thereafter brought him that it was he who opened and took out the contents of his
to the house of Barangay Captain Orencio Mercado where he, bag at his friends house, he averred that it was one of the
as averred by Bautista, was ordered by Mercado to open his tanod who did so at Mercados house and that it was only
bag. Petitioners bag allegedly contained a pair of denim pants, there that they saw the marijuana for the first time.
eighteen pieces of eggplant and dried marijuana leaves
wrapped in newspaper and cellophane. HELD:
3. Aratas and Ordoo corroborated Bautistas testimony on most
material points. On crossexamination, however, Aratas When petitioner was arrested without a warrant, he was neither
admitted that he himself brought out the contents of caught in flagrante delicto committing a crime nor was the arrest
petitioners bag before petitioner was taken to the house of effected in hot pursuit. Verily, it cannot therefore be reasonably
Mercado. Nonetheless, he claimed that at Mercados house, it argued that the warrantless search conducted on petitioner was
was petitioner himself who brought out the contents of his incidental to a lawful arrest.
bag upon orders from Mercado. For his part, Ordoo testified
that it was he who was ordered by Mercado to open Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides the
petitioners bag and that it was then that they saw the only occasions on which a person may be arrested without a
purported contents thereof. warrant, to wit:
4. The prosecution likewise presented Police Inspector Valeriano
Laya II, the forensic chemist who conducted the examination Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a
of the marijuana allegedly confiscated. He disclosed on cross- private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
examination, however, that he had knowledge neither of how
the marijuana was taken from petitioner nor of how the said (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
substance reached the police officers. Moreover, he could not committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
identify whose marking was on the inside of the cellophane offense;
wrapping the marijuana leaves
1
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has attributed to ones consciousness of guilt; flight alone is not a
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or reliable indicator of guilt without other circumstances because
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and flight alone is inherently ambiguous. More importantly, petitioner
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has testified that he did not run away but in fact spoke with the
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving barangay tanod when they approached him.
final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to Moreover, as we pointed out in People v. Tudtud, the phrase in his
another. presence therein, connotes penal knowledge on the part of the
arresting officer. The right of the accused to be secure against any
It is obvious that based on the testimonies of the arresting unreasonable searches on and seizure of his own body and any
barangay tanod, not one of these circumstances was obtaining at deprivation of his liberty being a most basic and fundamental one,
the time petitioner was arrested. By their own admission, petitioner the statute or rule that allows exception to the requirement
was not committing an offense at the time he alighted from the of a warrant of arrest is strictly construed. Its application
bus, nor did he appear to be then committing an offense.The tanod cannot be extended beyond the cases specifically provided
did not have probable cause either to justify petitioners warrantless by law.
arrest.
Indeed, the supposed acts of petitioner, even assuming that they
For the exception in Section 5(a), Rule 113 to operate, this Court appeared dubious, cannot be viewed as sufficient to incite
has ruled that two (2) elements must be present: (1) the person to suspicion of criminal activity enough to validate his warrantless
be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just arrest. If at all, the search most permissible for the tanod to
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a conduct under the prevailing backdrop of the case was a stop-and-
crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the frisk to allay any suspicion they have been harboring based on
view of the arresting officer. petitioners behavior. However, a stop-and-frisk situation, following
Terry v. Ohio, must precede a warrantless arrest, be limited to the
Here, petitioners act of looking around after getting off the bus persons outer clothing, and should be grounded upon a genuine
was but natural as he was finding his way to his destination. That reason, in light of the police officers experience and surrounding
he purportedly attempted to run away as the tanod approached conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has
him is irrelevant and cannot by itself be construed as adequate to weapons concealed about him.
charge the tanod with personal knowledge that petitioner had just
engaged in, was actually engaging in or was attempting to engage
in criminal activity. Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt and
must not always be

137) Valdez Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

137) Valdez Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

137) Valdez Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

137.

Valdez vs Court of Appeals Defenses version:

You might also like