Political Law >> Validity of stop and frisk

GREGORIO TELEN Y ICHON, petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

G.R. No. 228107 October 09, 2019

FACTS: Petitioner Telen was charged with the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The
prosecution alleged that when PO3 Mazo was at a gas station waiting in line behind Telen. When Telen was
about to pay, he raised his shirt to draw out his wallet, and exposed a metal part of what appeared to be a
hand grenade tucked in his waist band. PO3 Mazo called for backup and was instructed by his superior to tail
Telen. Upon signal that the backup were in position, the officer placed his arm around Telen and warned him
not to make any untoward movement. He pulled the metal thing on Telen’s waist which turned out to be a
hand grenade.

Upon arrest of the petitioner, PO3 Mazo frisked him and recovered three sachets of white crystalline
substance which were marked, inventoried and photographed in the presence of witnesses.

Meanwhile, the petitioner contends that he was not arrested in flagrante delicto because there was no
sufficient basis to incite suspicion that he was committing a criminal activity and that the prosecution
likewise failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs.

ISSUE: Whether the warrantless search made upon petitioner was unlawful, and consequently, the illegal
drugs confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence.

HELD: Yes. For a valid stop and frisk search, the arresting officer should have personally observed at least
two or more suspicious circumstances. A reasonable interference must be deduced from the totality of
circumstances to justify further investigation by the arresting officer.

Here, however, the prosecution failed to prove the legality of the warrantless arrest. Its bare assertion that
the police officers apprehended petitioner after having been caught in flagrante of illegal possession of a
hand grenade is insufficient to cloth the police officers with the authority restrain petitioner’s liberty.

From the records, PO3 Mazo’s testimony demonstrates his lack of personal knowledge of suspicious
circumstances that would have created the suspicion of a crime being committed --- the necessary impetus
for him to “stop and frisk” petitioner.

Political Law >> Warrantless Arrests in violation of Sec 2, Article III

JOSEPH VILLASANA Y CABAHUG, petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

G.R. No. 209078 September 04, 2019

FACTS: Villasana was charged with violation of Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for illegal possession of "one (1) self-sealing transparent
plastic bag containing 0.15 gram of white crystalline substance Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu)[.]"

The prosecution presented PO3 Martinez as its first witness who alleged that while he was on duty, a
confidential informant arrived and reported that Jojo Villasana and Nida Villasana were rampantly selling
drugs along Hustisya Street, Marulas, Valenzuela City. Thus, a team was sent to conduct surveillance
operations. Eventually, Jojo was arrested while his wife was able to escape.

Meanwhile, Villasana testified that he was having a conversation inside a jeepney, which was then parked in
front of his house. Not far from them, a group of police officers arrived and accosted several persons that
were playing cara y cruz. One of the police officers called Villasana to come out while another officer grabbed
him by the waist and forced him to board a car parked behind the jeepney. He tried to resist, but the
arresting officers overpowered him.

On October 28, 2010, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision convicting Villasana. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision.
ISSUE: Whether the arrest of petitioner was valid under Sec. 2, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution

HELD: No. Under the 1987 Constitution, all citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and
seizures of their persons, houses, papers, and effects. As a rule, a search and seizure must be carried out
with a search warrant validly issued by a judge upon personal determination of probable cause; otherwise,
the search becomes unreasonable. It follows that any item or article obtained from such search cannot be
used as evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.

Jurisprudence, however, has recognized several exceptions to the search warrant requirement. Among these
exceptions is a search incidental to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the lawful arrest must precede the
search; the process cannot be reversed.

A lawful arrest may be effected with or without a warrant. Section 5(a) refers to an in flagrante
delicto arrest, and requires compliance with the "overt act test," as explained in People  v. Cogaed:

[F]or a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be affected, "two elements must concur: (1) the person
to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he [or she] 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."

Section 5(b), on the other hand, requires that at the time of the arrest, an offense had just been committed
and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the accused had committed it.

In both instances, the police officer must have personal knowledge of the commission of an offense. Under
Section 5(a), the officer himself or herself witnesses the crime; in Section 5(b), the officer knows that a
crime has just been committed and had witnessed some facts that led him or her to believe that the person
about to be arrested committed the offense.

In this case, PO3 Martinez was about six (6) to ten (10) meters away when he saw petitioner emerge from
an alley, talking to a woman while holding a plastic sachet. His testimony fails to state that he had personal
knowledge that the sachet contained shabu, or that he saw the sachet containing white crystalline
substance, to create a reasonable suspicion that the sachet did indeed contain shabu. From all indications—
the time of the arrest being 11:30 p.m., PO3 Martinez's location, and the tinted front windshield of the van
through which he was looking—it was highly doubtful that PO3 Martinez saw, let alone deciphered, the
contents of the sachet. For sure, it was only when he held petitioner's hand and confiscated the plastic
sachet that he was able to verify its contents.

It is settled that "reliable information" provided by police assets alone is not sufficient to justify a
warrantless arrest. There must be independent circumstances perceivable by the arresting officers
suggesting that a criminal offense is being committed to comply with the exacting requirements of Rule 113,
Section 5 of the Rules of Court. An accused must perform some overt act within plain view of the police
officers indicating that she or "he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a
crime.” None was present in this case.